





a n 6 ♦%/' ** \<yV vl 8 



G 



^ u * 

4-7* * 

.IT V* ^ 

,.'V : V'*.v.’'^ 

' v k**?, ^ 3 N A* 

<* ^ r V>W». , T% a <>*. -‘X 


^ ■\ V ^'^'‘ -i 

<\ ' o ♦ X * A 

* A' 

'/ ^ A * 

* ^ ^ " 
^ > ° t 

^: a o 


* ^ %'VPrV’ a v * 

w , <%* '/ . * s' . . < 

C° *, ©-, 0 - v* 



•xv > ~ 
o CT 


^•'-o <A — ^ v 

, 9 V ~ ^ ^ * 0 A V N 

^ * rx^/) V ^ v 

* '" *' A t A - 

z < y>' 




« As. 


c* ^ 

<\ 'o * i * A 

% ^ A X c° * C * 

*? >*■, A s. c £f7\\^Y.'*St z 

✓ *> A 


v* V 


8 I A 


3 HO 1 / 

/ ^ AT * * * 0 A ^ 

* - ,A r S? S* * 'P 

. «. A ~ o ^ v 

if* \V o 

^ %N8S*V .** . * 

O . _ <* •/ 



V </>, 





AA V*,TA A 

v\s'*-s > AAA.^ 

* '* 'A /V <* A\W A r ‘V. 

■'>* f\\\ P)f< //h o if* . x 



0 e X 


A ^O, *, - .s v 

$> l°’ , '*,'*0, * * 'Ax -' ' ’ * ,A -A&' 1---1-0 

’ -^ c ■' - v a - 


i, 00 *. 

> ^ ■ «*■ ■ 

* ' ' o x 

* .0 N o ° A 0 ' ^ » 

> c\^* „ v * o - A 



8 I ' * A 

A. v v\ 

i/hTo V.^ „* 

4v? . cT # <\> x . 

/ J? t. _ 1 / '/A 

° ° w as 

*<> V>» ^ 

. . \ ^ *> , . _ 

O. ♦ y _ s x ^0 . . y 0 • x ^ A ^ 


v v 


: 


\° a< 

^ <*■ , c^y//, 

s ’^M.VNXNp ? 5 > .->. * yyjj/'^ * K' 

k- S ' * ("n ' Cy ** ^ X vL. r^- ■/ 

^^-xn^A 3 0 * * fl i A * ^ (S' & 

o M 0 ^ 8 1 A \V s * * f 

yJ °a o V V s -v 

f. -n r (3 5» * 'P v fltftotfa, z> A 

* *'■ ; ^ as ' /u '« A/ AMAA 

y- -y , 

& > ^®{y'Mjp . v 0 (fc v ’ ,> <S d> ^ , 

A O, <■, ,x ,0 <■_ y 0.x < a A O. + 


X°°<. 



'* x0° °c **■» 

.0^ .<*., V "' V S 

» _s . « S v ^ ^ 

-J >,; \ c <s \f*4^ « 

iV if*. ~ ‘fc -X / x 2X ^ 


o°- 

<*. <^OvA\\n^5L. ^ 

.>>• v ^ 

» o x 



A 'A c 



-A 


CA A» s/» ^tfA|fxvA\ " ® 

■A. x %AAa > 

a A~’ A ^ ^ 'i* (y 

V «. ^ ^ ^ 3 N 0 - <0 


c<■ 

^ ^ ♦ 8 I A * ' A' - . ^ * 



>'' .«• A! ♦ 7% '"Vo A 

^ Av A x ^ ^ jp/jVy> + 

r ■>* V *» 

* © CT 



A A 





1 ^ a Y * 0 


’°* »8.^ A 



V S' 

4 A A : - 

\ , o N c Af* ^ / * <> s ’ A 

°o o 0 ' 



c> 


V 

1* 

A 

J&P 

O 

v A 

A 

% 

2 k-// 

°>¥ 

!>■ ^ 



o 

V 

V 

<. A 

V 

1 8 4 

. ^ 


» <1 > y 3 N 0 A 



•Z 


,\X ’ 

#■ *rf 


7 ° 
A ? 

% A 

S' 

<* 

i|fe5 < 

A : .l 


" o 
r 

\ 

(1 k"> 2 4/ A 

«A A. o t/ 

A ^ - u i 

’- >\' . 0 CO 

A-. \ ^ ^ 

^ '' -4 



= \ 0 

* ^^vVOCS" > ' 4, 

<K *» ^ * A cy e 

^ *»n°' ♦ 

A k ^ ^ * 0 A o 

% A % A i 


A 




A* ^ 


«^> O 



V ^ 














r 0 V V 


,VX « 

V* * 

j.0o 

X >- 


© o x 

’ «,V* ~*V o 0 * £ S * 

\^ . S * * f V*. *> N 0 v;^ "O ,y A A C^V ✓ ^S" 3- ft 

v ' 'Wv"- ^ *o »’'*•/■ ■%. •■' A\,.., ^'»«.’ i c 
* * *>■ A* * .«<§> v **V v ^ A <v 

“/Pii^ %>**' ;Am 6 ^ a* * 00W%.^ .a a* 

z 9: AViVA - *< * 00 £ \w>> / >; </> \ v c 



aV </> 

i * * 


c% % 
t? ' 



y ,, < 'o.y* A 'o . « » -4 

lm ‘ * *. •%. t**'* ^c, '••' / .H'.'v,'-*'/ N „ 

• ■ ' ° 0° s’/rpl- ** A ,‘° ♦ 

* V- V o 






1 '>,.’■ A 0 " % *'»» < Vi»'^# A '■'r : ^ s3 k*' n 0 rv 

\> ^\^‘°' %, v' •"“o^ ,.„ ».,,* 

eV *1 ¥a; V A * V dSfe'* «, A* 

•*ww%* *£ z llki|§ : : mmhi 

,\ o. /.a’*— # v \, '. Igllv a*\ 

► t° N S '/* 1 *« s s A° v i B y o , ^ * A ^ A 

% ©-> r 0 k V * * ^ *V , o N c . */- ' ** *' . , . 

<. <*55SW. ^ ,0 ^ aT °o rP k V * 

; «b o x +> s s ~ 

$ <» 

* ^ ^ v '<** ' A< ° V 5 »■ 

*■ ^ y ’ -,'f ' ' ,> ” *' r\ «*• X'f _ 

£, " 1 v ^ s s.., e. *»«»’ ^0- -O 

^ ' .'wrtfcwV , % v' 0 vv'*'> 3n0 

‘♦' v ■% ^ 





* 

<*? '%■ ^w : <^ v *v • 

A <• * y o*x'* A <*■- ^ ^ ,J .-._- 

0 V ‘ ® # t\^ 0 N G At s' ,, <*- y o o G "* .A 

^vT%, * V -\i ^ G 0 > \y>J 1 *<P jir - c . 

ff'dl/V/ 3 ?-, •f ~ y ’^. A' <s 



k ^ s «' : ' '* ^Xi 

v °v 


N C 


> «r 




* ^ 


'>* V 
o r\> 


/»■»’*/ »♦. "V'n.-'' /‘ 

■ A° .» „ °\ C- v\s' 


^ ^ > y o 

^ o )y 0 O* 


/ 


^ ^ *> 
cA* > 



^ ^ o o 

; ^ Vo K 0 5 ^° -O 

V > A 0 k ^ ^ * 0 ^ ^ 

<<> 



2 v ,v ' ; f.;|^f% : v - ${&% c ^ < 

^ ** v VvW*V H 

— + C ’S> S V fl * V ^ S t 0 N °' ♦ ^ r 

\r ^ o N v j&/r?7?i ^ * °c> c> v 

« 'V? ■> -< v' c" ^ v 

/ k i* ^ x°^. 

ct- > a A v "T'fVt/A*’ ■> P 

“ > ^0-. c o ^ ^ S ^ 







V* A' 5 

r v 


V' -* ° c,^ <<. o v>; / \v'-\'v3 j * 

Va ^ ^ * '> 

^ % °o ,0' V* 1 ' % %, A x t 

*0 0 x * 0?Mz<Z' ^ A 


O 0 


* • - • V.. ..v^y't *.: v 

r «? 5 , « 'P v v V ^ ^ ^ O 

%V \.V : %/ ; AV^ 

/ V % V<A^ r w . 

% u. a ^ e- -i ^ > 



- ^ 


cP s " 



























EARLY PHILADELPHIA 

ARCHITECTS 
<w ENGINEERS 

By 

JOSEPH JACKSON 

w 

* 

Illustrated 


PHILADELPHIA 


MDMXXIII 






















'■ 











UM5 5' 
T5rT3 


5 I (*SI7 



























engaged in the construction industry in Philadel¬ 
phia, the different chapters were reprinted in a 
small number of copies after their appearance in 
the periodical, and of these only twenty-five com¬ 
plete sets of parts have been bound up in book 
form. 

This explanation is necessary to account for 
the peculiarities of typography which will be no¬ 
ticed; such as blank pages } and the omission of 
numbers to the last pages of each chapter. It is 
not believed that these defects will seriously in¬ 
convenience the reader. 

No other work covers the same field, and , indeed, 
it will be found that noivhere except in this book 
can even a fragmentary history of building and 
architecture in Philadelphia be found. Unfor¬ 
tunately, the demand for books so local in char¬ 
acter is so small that this must be a very limited 

$ 

edition. 

At best, being an adventure in an untouched 
field, this work can only be regarded as a sketch. 

IV 


FOREWORD 


It is believed that this work includes all the 
architects and engineers of importance who may 
fairly be alluded to as Early workers in Phila¬ 
delphia. The latest of them, John McArthur, 
woidd have reached the age of one hundred years 
had he lived until now, and his chief works were 
erected so long ago that they are now being re¬ 
moved for more modern structures. 

Originally designed for a trade publication, 
BUILDING, a magazine that reaches every 07ie 

III 



# 







It is in no sense offered as a complete and com¬ 
prehensive history , hut as that probably never 
ivill be ivritten, for the present this must serve 
all who desire information on the subject. 

JOSEPH JACKSON. 

April , 1923. 


^ /*+ /7 



y 





CONTENTS 


CHAP. PAGE 

Foreword . Ill 

Contents. VII 

List of Illustrations.. IX 

I—William Strickland. 5 

II—Pioneer Builders. 29 

III— Amateur Architects and Professional 

Builders . 49 

IV— Thornton L’Enfant and Latrobe.... 75 

J 

V—Benjamin H. Latrobe. 99 

VI—Robert Mills . 123 

VII—John Haviland . 145 

VIII—Graff, Ellet, Trautwine and Kneass.. 169 

IX—Thomas U. Walter. 193 

X—John Notman . 213 

XI—Napoleon Le Brun. 231 

XII—John McArthur . 253 

Index . 269 


VII 

























LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGE 


William Strickland. 4 

From Lithograph by Neagle. 

Independence Hall . 10 

St. Paul's Episcopal Church. 14 

Merchants' Exchange . 19 

Slate Roof House. 28 

From Photograph in 1868. 

Old Swedes’ Church. 32 

Samuel Powell’s “Operation,” Pine Street. . 37 

Independence Hall in 1772. 48 

Carpenters' Hall . 53 

Girard National Bank . 57 

Central Building, Pennsylvania Hospital. . . 61 

Philadelphia Library . 74 

From Photograph in 1860. 

William Thornton, M. D. 79 


IX 













Major Peter Charles L’Enfant. 83 

From a drawing. 

Benjamin Henry Latrobe. 98 

Centre Square Engine House, 1801. 103 

From l, The Stranger in America 

Bank of Pennsylvania. 107 

From a Photograph in 1855. 

Robert Mills . 122 

From a drawing. 

Upper Ferry Bridge at Fairmount. 127 

From a contemporary aquatint. 


Home of Robert Mills, 8th and Locust Sts.. . 131 


From a photograph in 1922. 

Wing Building to Independence Hall. 133 

From a photograph in 1888. 

John Ilaviland ... 144 

From a mezzotint by Welch. 

Eastern Penitentiary. 149 

Franklin Institute . 153 

St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church. 157 

Frederick Graff . 168 

Charles El let, Jr. 176 

From a steel engraving. 

John C. Trautwine. 183 

Thomas U. Walter. 192 

From a photograph by Gutekunst. 


X 

















Moyamensing Prison . 197 

Preston Retreat ... .. 203 

John Notman . 213 

From a photograph. 

First Brownstone Residence in Philadelphia. 216 

St. Mark’s Episcopal Church. 219 

Mercantile Library (old building). 223 

Napoleon Le Brun. 230 

From a photograph. 

Jefferson Medical College. 235 

From a photograph in 1855. 

Cathedral of SS. Peter and Paul. 239 

Academy of Music, Philadelphia. 243 

From a photograph circ. 1860. 

John McArthur. 252 

From a steel engraving. 

Public Ledger Building, 1867. 257 

Continental Hotel, built 1858. 261 

McArthur’s Original Design for Philadelphia 
City Hall, 1873. 265 


XI 















ERRATA 


Page 34 tenth and eleventh lines from bottom, for contain 
read contains. 

Page 48, under plate, for 1752, read 1772. 

Page 77, eighth line from bottom, for Blanharnias, read 
B^ajfharnais. 

Page 93, third line from bottom, for Cockrell read Cockerell. 

Page 94, second and third lines from top, for Cockrell read 
Cockerell. 

Page 186, sixth line from top, for Columbia read Colombia. 

Page 187, add The founder of the Engineers’ Pocket Book 
died September 14, 1883. 

Page 207, fifth line from bottom, for MacArthur read Mc¬ 
Arthur. 

Page 221, second line from bottom, for Tait read Taitt. 

Page 224, ninth line from bottom, for Capital read Capitol. 


XII 


I 

WILLIAM STRICKLAND 





William Strickland 






WILLIAM STRICKLAND 

S EVENTH-FIVE years ago Philadelphia was 
regarded as the Athens of America, owing 
to its pre-eminence in literature and the 
classic simplicity of its architecture, which, as 
was only logical in a city which had some of the 
best examples of Georgian, or Colonial, buildings 
to be found in the country at that time, was 
strongly impregnated with Greek forms. When 
the history of the architecture of Philadelphia is 
written—some persons may be of the belief that 
it has been attempted once or twice—it will be 
plain that the influence that animated all the early 
structural design after the city had begun the 
erection of great public buildings is traceable to 
one or two men. 

The first of these, in point of chronology, is 
the English architect and engineer, Benjamin 
Henry Latrobe, and second, his most eminent 
pupil, William Strickland. Our art annals have 
dealt rather shabbily with Strickland, and yet 
there remain even now, more distinguished ex¬ 
amples of his work than of any other early Amer¬ 
ican architect and engineer. 

As an illustration of how Strickland has been 
handled by the average biographical dictionary. 
Simpson’s Lives of Eminent Philadelphians Lately 
Deceased, which was published the year of Strick- 


5 


land’s death, devotes nine lines to his work, while 
the mere catalogue of the great buildings he erect¬ 
ed in his native city alone could not be listed in 
such short space. Dunlap, in his History of the 
Arts of Design, gave eleven lines to William 
Strickland, and three lines to his brother George. 
It should be said in defense of Dunlap, however, 
that he confesses his letters of inquiry to the arch¬ 
itect were ignored. Appleton's Cyclopaedia of 
American Biography contains a notice of about 
the same length. That Strickland’s work is un¬ 
known in his own city is not therefore remark¬ 
able, but the last city in which he worked at his 
profession, paid him the distinguished honor of 
laying him to rest in a crypt in the building he 
had designed—the Capitol at Nashville, Tenn. It 
should be mentioned that there are a half-a-dozen 
valuable references to Strickland. in Scharf & 
Westcott's “History of Philadelphia.” 

William Strickland was the son of a success¬ 
ful builder—but they did not call them that in 
those days. He himself gave his business as that 
of house carpenter. He was a charter member 
of the House Carpenters’ Society, the rival of the 
Carpenters’ Company, and when the society pub¬ 
lished its book of prices in 1812, the first chal¬ 
lenge to the methods pursued by the older organi¬ 
zation, William Strickland made the designs for 
the plates which illustrate it. One of these is 


6 


particularly interesting, since it portrays a sec¬ 
tional view of the stairway in Independence Hall, 
although not so labelled. It proves, however, that 
even in 1812 Strickland had been studying the 
architectural details of the old State House, which 
he was to make better known throughout the 
world, by capping its tower with a steeple that 
has given character to the building and has ever 
since been a kind of trade-mark for Philadelphia 
and a symbol for the nation. 

Wiliam Strickland was born in Philadelphia in 
1787, but it is not known exactly where. The di¬ 
rectories for 1785 do not contain the name of John 
Strickland, although they do list a Widow Strick¬ 
land, who may have been William's grandmother, 
living in a house on Second street south of Chest¬ 
nut. In the directory for 1791, the next directory 
for Philadelphia that was published, contains the 
name of John Strickland, house carpenter, who is 
described as living at number 12 Spruce street, at 
that time a tavern kept by Valentine Peca, or 
Pecan. 

It was about nine years later that B. Henry 
Latrobe came to Philadelphia and took a house 
on Arch street near Ninth while he completed 
his great waterworks for Philadelphia. To his 
office came young Strickland, whom he regarded 
as very gifted but wayward. At this time it is 
evident that Strickland had thoughts of becoming 


7 


a great painter; certainly all of his ideas at the 
time ran toward the graphic arts. When, in 1807, 
his father went to New York City to remodel the 
Park Theatre there at the instance of John J. 
Holland, an English architect and scene painter 
who had been brought to this country by Thomas 
Wignell, one of the first managers of the first 
Chestnut Street Theatre, he appears to have taken 
his son, William, with him. It was about this time 
that Dunlap remarks having seen Strickland in 
the scene room of the Park Theatre which Dun¬ 
lap managed, and mentions that he was working 
under Hugh Reinagle, a scene painter whom he 
probably had known in Philadelphia; because 
Reinagle had been scene painter at the Chestnut 
Street Theatre in Philadelphia, while that play¬ 
house was partly under his father's control. The 
senior Reinagle, an accomplished musician and 
conductor, was joint manager with Wignell. 

It was not until Strickland had reached ma¬ 
turity that we begin to find him actively engaged 
in architecture and engineering. It is true that 
he designed the Masonic Hall in Chestnut street 
between Seventh and Eighth streets, erected in 
1810 and burned in 1819. This structure was 
Gothic in style, and consequently showed none of 
the classic Greek influence which Strickland must 
have imbibed in the office of the elder Latrobe. 

It should be understood that until Latrobe 


8 


came to Philadelphia the average public building 
erected here was the joint work of an amateur 
architect and a practical house carpenter, or 
builder. It is well known that the old State House, 
now Independence Hall, was erected from the de¬ 
sign of a lawyer, Andrew Hamilton; that the mag¬ 
nificent facade of the first bank of the United 
States, now the Girard National Bank, was a 
suggestion of a wealthy gentleman, Samuel Blod- 
get, who gave the builder a picture of the Dublin 
Exchange for a pattern; that the front of the 
main building of the Pennsylvania Hospital, that 
is the Pine street facade, was designed by a tal¬ 
ented auctioneer, John Dorsey, who, evidently 
flushed with success, erected his historic Gothic 
Mansion on Chestnut street west of Twelfth street 
and gave Philadelphians for a generation some¬ 
thing to talk about. It was far and wide adver¬ 
tised as a perfect example of Gothic style. An 
engraving of this abnormal building was given in 
a number of the Port Folio in 1816. Mr. Dorsey 
also supplied the architectural design for the old 
Market street bridge across the Schuylkill river, 
always called the Permanent Bridge. 

Philadelphia was thirsting for tasteful archi¬ 
tecture at the moment that Strickland appears on 
the scene. The psychological hour and the man 
fortunately were to meet. Even Latrobe admits 
that the design of his first architectural work in 


9 



Independence Haij, 





this country, and one structure that was for many 
years admired—the Pennsylvania Bank, on Sec¬ 
ond street north of Walnut street, was suggested 
by the president of that institution, Samuel M. 
Fox, who insisted on something after the Greek. 

Latrobe was a trained architect and engineer 
when he came to this country, and his influence 
was immediately felt. Designs of our public 
buildings at once improved, not only that, but the 
opportunity to have a building properly designed 
created a demand for improvements, and they 
were made. Latrobe was active in the establish¬ 
ment of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine 
Arts and, in addition to teaching classes there, on 
more than one occasion delivered addresses on the 
general subject of the state of art in this country 
and how it might be developed. 

Strickland was an active, imaginative young 
man; and one who just overflowed with energy. 
In the realm of art he was at home, whether paint¬ 
ing a landscape or a portrait; drafting a bridge 
or a bank or engraving in line or aquatint. In 
this latter process he became one of the most suc¬ 
cessful engravers of his time. However, it is 
Strickland, the architect and engineer, that prob¬ 
ably will last longest in fame, but it should be 
mentioned that between the years 1811 and 1820 
he engraved many plates for the magazines here, 
notably the Port Folio and the Analectic. He also 


11 


engraved, in aquatint, the 14 plates which illus¬ 
trate Captain David Porter's “Journal of a Cruise 
Made to the Pacific Ocean in the Years 1812, 1813 
and 1814,” which was published in 1815. Some 
of these plates were afterwards used in the Port 
Folio to illustrate reviews of the book. 

Strickland engraved many pictures of sea- 
fights, after paintings by William Birch, as well 
as of frontier forts, that figured in the War of 
1812. He painted and engraved a portrait of 
Commodore Perry, and engraved for the Port 
Folio a portrait of Captain Meriwether Lewis, 
after St. Memin. A large folding plate of Wash¬ 
ington Hall, from a drawing by his brother George 
adorns one of the numbers of the Port Folio for 
the year 1816. 

All the while Strickland was engraving plates 
for publication he was engaged as an architect, 
with his office on Arch street between Ninth and 
Tenth streets. He designed and superintended the 
erection of the following public buildings in Phil¬ 
adelphia : 

Old Masonic Hall, in Chestnut street. 

f 

Second Chestnut Street Theatre, Chestnut 
and Sixth streets. / 

First United States Custom House, on Second 
street. 

St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, Tenth street 
north of Chestnut. 


12 


St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Third street, 
south of Walnut (remodeling). 

Philadelphia Bank, Fourth and Chestnut 
streets. 

Mechanics’ Bank, Third street, south of Mar¬ 
ket street. 

Arch Street Theatre, Arch street near Sixth. 

State House steeple (Independence Hall). 

Musical Fund Hall, Locust street west of 
Eighth. 

United States Naval Asylum, Gray's Ferry 
Road and Bainbridge street. 

University of Pennsylvania, Ninth street 
south of Market. 

Blockley Almshouse, Thirty-fourth and Pine 
streets. 

Bank of the United States (present Custom 
House). 

Merchants’ Exchange, Dock and Walnut 
streets. 

United States Mint, Juniper and Chestnut 
streets. 

Friends’ Asylum, Frankford. 

Mickve Israel Synagogue, Cherry street west 
of Third. 

It is interesting to note that of this list of 18 
buildings erected nearly a century ago, eleven are 
still in existence, although some of these have been 


13 




M 


/ 



















subject to alterations in the meantime. 

It appears that after returning from the Park 
Theatre, where he was engaged in painting scenes 
in company with Hugh Reinagle, young Strick¬ 
land opened a studio in Philadelphia on Arch 
street, near Tenth. In the directory for 1809 he 
is described as “landscape painter, etc., 262 Mul¬ 
berry street.During the next two years he con¬ 
tinued to be designated in this way. There was 
no directory issued for the year 1812, but in the 
one issued for 1813 we first find William Strick¬ 
land definitely set down as Architect. Thereafter 
he is designated as architect and engineer, and 
the loss that American landscape painting suf¬ 
fered, if it is at all computable, is entirely offset 
by the great gain the country made by the addi¬ 
tion of Strickland to its engineers, builders and 
architects. It may be calmly said that Strickland 
gave to his native city much of the dignity and 
fame it enjoyed for two generations for the high 
character of its architecture. He left Philadel¬ 
phia a tradition that never has been entirely for¬ 
gotten by the members of his profession. 

While Strickland set up for architect in 1813, 
it will be recalled that at the time the War of 1812 
was on, and the country was naturally not think¬ 
ing of building projects. It is not possible now 
to make anything like a complete list of the build¬ 
ings that Strickland designed and constructed, 


15 




but from obvious data, his first important public 
work of architecture was the Masonic Hall on 
Chestnut street, west of Seventh, which was 
erected in 1809-10, and burned in 1819. 

The next important structure with which he 
was connected as principal constructor was the 
Friends’ Asylum, at Frankford. This hospital 
was erected in 1817, at a period when Strickland 
still was devoting some of his time to engraving 
aquatints. In 1818 he designed the first Custom 
House, Second street south of Dock. The Second 
Bank of the United States having been authorized 
by Congress and the building occupied by the 
First Bank having become the property of 
Stephen Girard, it became necessary to build a 
new bank and Strickland was selected as archi¬ 
tect and engineer. At the suggestion of Nicholas 
Biddle, it is said, a classic style of architecture 
was used. The front of the building, which the 
present generation knows as the Custom House, 
on Chestnut street east of Fifth, was a free copy 
of the Parthenon and seems to have set the stamp 
of approval for the Classic style on subsequent 
public buildings erected in Philadelphia. 

Begun in 1819, the bank building was not fin¬ 
ished until the year 1824, and in the meantime 
Strickland was engaged in many other undertak¬ 
es of a large character. At this time he was not 
only the most prominent architect and engineer 


16 


in Philadelphia, but was widely recognized as an 
eminent man of genius. After the old Masonic 
Hall in Chestnut street near Seventh was de¬ 
stroyed by fire in 1819 Strickland was employed 
on rebuilding it. In 1820 he made the design for 
the synagogue for the Congregation Mickve Is¬ 
rael, on Cherry street near Third. In 1820 the 
Chestnut Street Theatre, at Sixth street, was 
burned to the ground, and Strickland was called 
upon to supply a design for a new playhouse. 
This was quickly put up and was opened in 1822. 
In 1821 Strickland also designed and built the 
New Jerusalem Temple, which stood at Twelfth 
and Sansom streets, and in 1822 rebuilt the Or¬ 
phan Asylum, which had been destroyed by fire 
the previous year. 

The property on Tenth street south of Mar¬ 
ket, which had been secured by a Methodist con¬ 
gregation for a church, came into the hands of 
the Episcopal churh, and the original building 
on the lot was entirely remodeled by Strickland. 
This church stands today substantially as it was 
built in 1823. The next year Strickland had a 
similar job to perform for the Musical Fund So¬ 
ciety, which has purchased an unfinished church on 
Locust street west of Eighth. This hall of the 
Society was rebuilt from Strickland’s designs and 
to the present day is famed for its wonderful 
acoustic properties. In this year 1824 the United 


17 


States Bank building was completed, and Strick¬ 
land’s fame was secure. 

The beginning of the Erie Canal about this 
time set this part of the country on fire with de¬ 
sire for improvements. In Philadelphia there was 
formed a society to inspire and suggest public im¬ 
provements. This organization consisted of for¬ 
ty-eight Philadelphia gentlemen, who in Novem¬ 
ber, 1824, formed the Pennsylvania Society for 
the Promotion of Internal Improvements. They 
desired data upon which to found their recom¬ 
mendations and appointed William Strickland, 
who had just been elected recording secretary of 
the newly-formed Franklin Institute, to go to Eng¬ 
land, Ireland and Scotland to study and report 
upon great public projects in course of construc¬ 
tion. Accompanying Strickland on this trip was 
a young man in his office, Samuel H. Kneass, then 
but nineteen years of age. 

Strickland and his assistant sailed from Phil¬ 
adelphia for Liverpool in March, 1825, and re¬ 
turned in December the same year. The result of 
the nine months spent abroad was a large oblong 
folio volume of reports, illustrated with 72 plates, 
all of them, it is said, drawn by his assistant, 
young Kneass, but under Strickland’s direction. 
The results of this tour of inspection were almost 
immediately made manifest. The survey included 
railways, canals, gas making, and breakwater. 


18 



Old Merchants’ Exchange 















And from this report the system of canals which 
Pennsylvania enjoyed until forty years ago, the 
city’s gas works, the railways and the Delaware 
Breakwater are the visible results. The influence 
which the report made on the rest of the country 
can only be imagined, but it is proper to infer 
that it was an important factor in the progressive 
era of internal improvements that followed. 

The tour through the British Isles had made 
Strickland the best informed man on the gen¬ 
eral subject of public improvements then in the 
United States. Almost immediately he was ap¬ 
pointed to design the Naval Hospital on Gray's 
Ferry Avenue. This was in 1827, and not only 
did he design the structure and lay out its grounds, 
but he was designated to superintend the con¬ 
struction of the building. The hospital, or asylum, 
as it is now usually called, was finished in 1833. 
In 1828, at the time when Strickland was begin¬ 
ning on this work, he was selected by City Coun¬ 
cils to restore the old State House, or Indepen¬ 
dence Hall. A part of this restoration was supply¬ 
ing a steeple to the historic edifice; and while the 
architect followed to a degree the design of the 
original steeple, he improved its proportions and 
its architectural symmetry and character. The 
same year he built the Arch Street Theatre, the 
building which still stands on that street west of 
Sixth. The upper part of the building was al- 

20 * 


tered in 1863, but the character of the original 
has not been seriously impaired. 

In 1829 Strickland began work on the United 
States Mint at Juniper and Chestnut streets, and 
on the Delaware Breakwater. He had made a 
special study of the breakwater in process of con¬ 
struction at Dublin when he was in Ireland, and 
the Delaware project follows the former very 
closely, but with adaptations that are an im¬ 
provement and more properly fit the conditions 
found at the mouth of. the Delaware Bay. The 
breakwater project was not completed until 1840, 
and in the meantime Strickland was actively at 
work on numerous pieces of construction here 
and in other parts of the country. 

In 1829-30 he rebuilt the halls of the Uni¬ 
versity of Pennsylvania, then on Ninth street 
south of Market; designed and superintended the 
construction of Blockley Almshouse, Thirty- 
fourth and Pine streets* 1831-34; remodeled and 
virtually rebuilt St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, 
Third street south of Walnut, 1832; and between 
1832 and 1834 was building the Merchants’ Ex¬ 
change, at Dock and Walnut streets. 

Here again Strickland accomplished a piece of 
architectural design that was novel in this coun¬ 
try. With a boldness and daring that had not 
been attempted here before, he treated the tri¬ 
angular corner in a most impressive manner and 


21 



topped the circular, colonnaded porch with a large 
lantern. This was an artful adaptation of the 
feature of the famed choragic monument of Lysi- 
crates at Athens. Although erected so many 
years ago, the Merchants’ Exchange building is 
one of the architectural features of Philadelphia, 
and a relic of the days when we were pleased to 
sit adoringly at the feet of the ancient Greeks. 

The numerous improvements in buildings 
that had been made all around its bank building 
at Fourth and Chestnut streets, seems to have in¬ 
fluenced the directors of the Philadelphia Bank, 
in 1836, to rebuild and increase the size of their 
property. Strickland was called upon to make the 
designs and superintend the erection of the new 
building, which was built of Pennsylvania marble, 
and carried out some of the feeling for the antique 
exhibited so prominently in the old Bank of the 
United States which adjoined. A part of this 
structure still remains, but the corner was long 
ago removed to make room for the Wood Building, 
the first attempt at a modern office building made 
in Philadelphia. Not long afterward Strickland 
built the Mechanics’ Bank, on Third street south 
of Market, which structure, somewhat altered 
from the original appearance, still stands. 

The European trip of Strickland opened his 
eyes to the importance of railways and harbor im¬ 
provements in the United States, and the latter 


22 


part of his life was more or less devoted to this 
kind of work, which was strictly engineering, 
rather than architecture. His reports, which 
have been printed, show that he favored railways 
rather than canal projects for the United States. 
This suggestion came at a time when not a rail¬ 
way was in operation in this country, but atten¬ 
tion had long been given to the cutting of canals, 
usually followed with comparatively little success. 

However, as soon as Strickland returned he 
was engaged to organize a corps of engineers to 
construct the Susquehanna Division of the State 
Canal; he also was in charge of the construction 
of the Delaware and Chesapeake Canal, or, at 
least conducted the survey from which the work 
was accomplished. In 1835 he was selected engi¬ 
neer of the Delaware and Maryland Railroad, 
which comprised the division of the Philadelphia, 
Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad, between 
Havre de Grace and Philadelphia. 

In 1837, at the suggestion of John Struthers, 
the marble mason of Philadelphia, Strickland de¬ 
signed the sarcophagus for the remains of George 
Washington, which all who have visited the great 
American’s tomb at Mt. Vernon, have seen. Law¬ 
rence Lewis had asked Struthers for an estimate 
for the work, and the Philadelphian answered 
that he would be honored if he were permitted to 
present the sarcophagus. His offer was accepted 


23 



and Strickland not only designed the sar¬ 
cophagus, but, going to Mt. Vernon to see the 
great marble block set in place, found the tomb 
entirely inadequate. He at once designed altera¬ 
tions to the tomb as it is seen at present, and also 
a sarcophagus for Mrs. Washington. He likewise 
superintended the construction. In 1840 Strick¬ 
land wrote a report of this work in a volume en¬ 
titled, “The Tomb of Washington.” The follow¬ 
ing year, in company with Edward H. Gill and 
Henry R. Campbell, he edited an atlas folio work 
on “Public Works of the United States of Amer¬ 
ica,” which was published in London, by John 
Weale, in 1841. Among the subjects treated in 
this work which was highly regarded in Europe, 
was the construction of the Delaware Breakwater, 
at that time regarded as one of the greatest works 
of engineering that had been accomplished in this 
country. Strickland also published separately the 
“Triangulation of the Entrance to Delaware Bay.” 

His last work was the building of the Capitol 
at Nashville, Tenn., in the spring of 1854. He had 
designed the building and was superintending the 
construction when he was stricken. The Tennes¬ 
see Legislature showed so much appreciation of 
his work that it passed an act authorizing the 
construction of a crypt in the building in which 
the architect and engineer's remains should lie. 
Therefore Strickland lies in a monument he him¬ 
self designed. 


II 

PIONEER BUILDERS 




























SLATE ROOF HOUSE 




As it appeared in 1868 before it was demolished 











PIONEER BUILDERS 

W RITING twenty-five years after the city 
of Philadelphia was settled, or in 1698, 
Gabriel Thomas, the first historian of the 
Province, noted with some pride that “Since that 
time [the founding of the city], the industrious 
(nay, indefatigable) inhabitants had built a noble 
and beautiful city, and called it Philadelphia, 
which contains above two thousand houses, all 
inhabited; and most of them stately, and of brick, 
generally three stories high, after the mode of 
London.” 

When it is considered that not only was the 
city a new one, but the country was a wilderness, 
and the nearest civilization that could be helpful 
was more than three thousand miles across the At¬ 
lantic, the construction of two thousand houses, 
of the three-story variety, appears to be something 
only a little less than marvelous. Certainly no 
other city in the country up to that time could 
make a showing comparable to it. 

If it proves nothing else the statement of 
Thomas indicates that Philadelphia must have 
had a goodly number of first class artisans among 
its first settlers. The Quakers as a class insisted 
upon the best of materials and of construction. 
They were not fond of ornament, but they de- 


mandecl the substantial, and this is shown by the 
fact that the buildings were constructed of brick. 
To be sure, the manufacture of lumber in those 
days was more difficult than the manufacture of 
brick, and the material for both were at the doors 
of Philadelphia. They even had, within fifteen 
miles of the city, marble in large quantities, and 
these quarries were early made use of, thus es¬ 
tablishing the Philadelphia house of the last two 
centuries, which was known far and wide as of 
red brick and white marble steps and trimmings. 

One of the first settlers, a man of wealth and 
position, Robert Turner, who had made large 
purchases of land in Pennsylvania, and was a 
friend of the Proprietary, was the inspiration un¬ 
derlying the brick house here. The majority of 
the buildings erected before he put up his fine, 
large dwelling at Front and Arch Streets, were of 
frame, and rather mean in appearance. In a let¬ 
ter to Penn, dated 3d, 6th month (August), 1685, 
Turner wrote: 

“And since I built my brick house the founda¬ 
tion which was laid at thy going [that is, in 1684], 
which I did design after a good manner to en¬ 
courage others, and that from building with wood, 
it being the first, many take example, and some 
that built wooden houses are sorry for it. Brick 
building is said to be as cheap. Bricks are ex¬ 
ceeding good and better than when I built; more 


30 


makers fallen in and bricks cheaper. They are 
16s. English per 1000, and now many brave brick 
houses are going up with good cellars.” 

According to this statement of Robert Tur¬ 
ner, he may be said to have been the first archi¬ 
tect in Pennsylvania, although like many for the 
next hundred years, he was only an amateur. His 
statement concerning brick manufacture should 
set at rest the frequently repeated assertion that 
this or that building in Philadelphia was erected 
with brick brought from England. No building 
erected in this city was built from imported brick, 
and many years' research has failed to discover 
the origin of the legend. 

The demand for the better type of house nat¬ 
urally inspired some of the good artisans of Eng¬ 
land, principally of London, to come to Philadel¬ 
phia. While there were those who made game 
of the meetings of the Society of Friends, and 
called their members Quakers in derision of their 
belief, at the same time they were quick to note 
that all of the Quakers were substantial people. 
It was almost a foundation of their belief. They 
demanded everything they wore or ate or used 
to be of good quality, even if they did not coun¬ 
tenance ornament or finery. And on this founda¬ 
tion was built the city of Philadelphia. It was 
just this attitude that made it the Quaker City 
and the City of Homes. The own-your-own-home 


31 



movement is not the product of the last few years, 
so far as Philadelphia is concerned; it has from 
the first been the rule, for the first settlers were 
almost without exception home builders and home 
owners. 

One of the first builders, who also was a de¬ 
signer or architect of houses, was James Porteus. 
Just when he came to the Province may not be 
known with exactness, but it certainly was before 
the year 1700. It was before that year that he 
erected the large, commodious dwelling for Sam¬ 
uel Carpenter, one of the richest men in the prov¬ 
ince, and naturally one who was highly regarded 
as a sort of nabob. 

This large house which stood until the year 
1868, and is now replaced by the building of the 
Keystone Telephone Company, on South Second 
Street, north of Walnut, is generally known to 
Philadelphia annals as the Slate Roof House, al¬ 
though it is said that its roof really was not 
originally of slate. It was the largest and finest 
house in Philadelphia at the time of its erection, 
and for years afterward. When Penn returned to 
Philadelphia on his second visit, he was domiciled 
in it during his stay, as the only place befitting 
his character and his station as Proprietary and 
Governor. It is also said that for years the Pro¬ 
vincial Council held its meetings in the building, 
so it was virtually the Executive Mansion and the 

32 






OLD SWEDE'S CHURCH 
Built 1698 













Capitol during this period. Penn, who arrived in 
1700 on this visit, remained about a year. 

Very little is known about Porteus, but it is 
believed he was a native of Dumfries, Scotland, 
but had lived in London previous to his removal 
to Philadelphia. He was one of the original asso- . 

ciators of the Carpenters' Company of Philadel¬ 
phia, which was founded in 1724. He appears 
to have died in the year 1736-37, according to the 
records of the office of the Register of Wills, for 
his will was dated November 30, 1736, and was 
admitted to probate January 22, 1736, which 
means 1737, for at that time the old style calen¬ 
dar was in use, and the year began on March 25. 
In the history of the Carpenters’ Company issued 
half a century ago, there is a statement that Por¬ 
teus left to that organization his collection of 
works on architecture. If this is correct, it is 
also true that none of these works can be identi¬ 
fied today, and the list of books in the library con¬ 
tain no volume on architecture printed before the 
death of Porteus. Also it may be stated that his 
will does not mention the Carpenters’ Company 
as one of his legatees. Consequently the state¬ 
ment is only legendary, and as a matter of fact, 
probably was intended to apply to Robert Smith, 
another member who died forty years later, some 
of whose books bearing his name are to be found 
on the shelves of the library of the Company. 


34 


A little light appears to be shed upon Por- 
teus in the Taylor Papers of the Historical So¬ 
ciety of Pennsylvania. It is not much, and may, 
indeed, refer to another. But it is mentioned here 
for what it is worth. There are three papers in 
the collection. Two of them mere surveys of 
land, and consequently not very informative, but 
the other is a warrant for a survey of the land 
for one James Portiss. It bears the date of 10th, 
5th month, 1704 (July, 1704), and is signed by 
James Logan, and addressed to Isaac Taylor, Sur¬ 
veyor of the County of Chester. In the foreword 
Portiss is mentioned as having come to the Prov¬ 
ince servant to William Wade, “and according to 
the Proprietary's concession grant him to take 
up his proportion of head land." This is shown 
to be 50 acres, “where not already surveyed nor 
taken up nor is concealed," etc., and to be held 
under a yearly quitrent of half penny sterling per 
acre. 

It is not easy to trace William Wade, but the 
assumption is that he was of the family of Wades 
who came to the banks of the Delaware some 
years before William Penn arrived here, and in¬ 
deed, before the Province was granted to Penn. 
However, there is no mention of a William Wade 
in the annals of that period and it is believed that 
he came here after 1683. As Porteus designed 
and erected the great house for Samuel Carpenter 


35 


in 1698-99, it is fair to assume that he was very 
young at the time he accompanied one of the 
Wades to this country. 

In 1698 work was begun upon Old Swedes 
Church, after the Swedes Church, Wilmington, 
had been completed. While both edifices show 
similarity in architecture, the Philadelphia struc¬ 
ture differs in several important particulars. It 
has been pointed out that both churches were de¬ 
signed after the prevailing styles in Sweden at 
that time, but if they were the American copies 
differed enough to be regarded as special types. 
The names of the principal workmen engaged 
upon the building of Old Swedes have been pre¬ 
served. John Smart and John Brett were the car¬ 
penters, and it is reasonable to believe that they 
were the designers, or architects, as that work 
usually was allotted to the house carpenter. An¬ 
other house carpenter, John Harrison, is said to 
have made the banisters and the pews for Old 
Swedes. The porches north and south were ad¬ 
ditions made after the church had been occupied 
for worship, or, in 1702. The steeple was a still 
later addition. The church was dedicated in 1700. 

If this John Harrison is the same carpenter 
who later worked upon Christ Church and be¬ 
came one of the founders of the Carpenters' Com¬ 
pany, he must have been a resident of the South¬ 
ern Liberties of the County, for John Harrison 


One of Samuel Powell’s “Operation,” Pine Street, East 

of Second 












was not admitted a freeman in Philadelphia until 
1717, which may be interpreted to mean that until 
that time he could not have carried on his occu¬ 
pation as house carpenter. In those days one 
could not sell at retail, nor engage in any trade 
or occupation until he or she acquired their free¬ 
dom of the city. This could be accomplished in 
two ways. One was to own personal property of 
a value of fifty pounds, and to have been a resi¬ 
dent of the city for two years, or to be a resident 
and have freehold property. In default of either 
of these methods, one might purchase freedom at 
prices which varied. John Harrison purchased his 
freedom for five shillings, six pence, and the same 
year two other carpenters, who later were or¬ 
ganizers of the Carpenters’ Company, bought their 
freedom in the same way. These were Edmund 
Woolley and John Henmarsh. It is true that the 
name given in the history of the Carpenters’ Com¬ 
pany is Joseph Henmarsh, but it is likely that 
the name was improperly copied from the records 
of the Recorder's Office. 

John Harrison either did not work upon 
Swedes Church in 1700, or he must have lived 
to be a very old man, for his will was probated 
in 1760. Joseph Henmarsh evidently died in 
1741, for his will was admitted to probate in that 
year. Edmund Woolley died in 1771, and he, too, 
must have been a very old man, or he must have 


38 


been the son of the man who was admitted to the 
freedom of the city in 1717. The probabilities, 
however, are that he took out his freedom papers 
upon reaching his majority, which would make 
him seventy-five years of age at the time of his 
death. 

In the history of the Carpenters' Company, 
which was instituted in 1724, is preserved the 
names of the ten house carpenters who associated 
themselves together for the better management 
of their trade. While these may not have been 
the only master carpenters then in Philadelphia, 
at least they may be presumed to have been lead¬ 
ers in their business. It also might be said that 
probably not one of them was regarded as good 
as a designer of buildings, but in those days the 
house carpenter was the architect, and it was 
only on rare occasions that a super-architect arose, 
such as Sir Christopher Wren, in London, who 
seems to have appeared at the critical moment 
when London had been razed by its dreadful fire. 
As a matter of record the names of these original 
associators of the Carpenters’ Company may be 
set down here: 

Joseph (or John) Henmarsh, who died in 
1741. 

James Porteus (or Portis), who died in 1737. 

Samuel Powell, referred to in Watson’s An¬ 
nals as “The Rich Carpenter,” who died in 1756. 


39 


Jacob Usher. There are no records of Usher's 
death in Philadelphia, and as there later was pro¬ 
bated a will of another of the same family, who 
was reported as having been of this city, but later 
of Virginia, it is possible that this Usher spent 
the remainder of his life in the latter province. 

Edmund Woolley, who died in 1771, who was 
the original builder of the State House, now In¬ 
dependence Hall. 

Joseph Harrison, who died in 1734. 

John Nichols (or Nicholas), who died in 1756. 

John Harrison, who was one of the builders 
of Christ Church, and who died in 1760. 

Benjamin Clark, who died in 1744. 

Isaac Zane, of whose death there does not 
appear to be any record, but that he was living 
in 1749 is shown by his having been recorded as 
executor of an estate in that year. 

Of those listed above, Powell may be said to 
have been one of the first operative builders in 
Philadelphia. He was reputed to have owned 
ninety houses. He lived in one of them at the 
northeast corner of Second and Pine Streets. He 
owned a row of three-story brick dwellings on 
the north side of Pine Street east of Second, and 
a row of frame dwellings on the north side of 
Pine Street from Fifth to Sixth Streets. He also 
owned the property called Powell Hill, upon which 
the present St. Paul’s Episcopal Church stands. 


40 



This property extended from Pear Street to 
Spruce and some distance back from Third. 

In spite of his reputed wealth, he went before 
City Council in 1718 and asked a discount from 
his stall rent, alleging that he had lost money by 
erecting the bridge across the Dock at Walnut 
Street. He originally bought the whole square 
from Fifth to Sixth and from Spruce to Pine 
Streets for fifty pounds. His large brick dwell¬ 
ings on Pine Street rented for only 15 pounds a 
year. It is interesting to learn that the City Coun¬ 
cil answered his prayer for remission of some of 
the money he owed with the statement that a dis¬ 
count would be inconvenient. 

Who was the builder of Christ Church and 
who was its architect is not known to a certainty. 
Claims for having designed it are made for Dr. 
John Kearsley, and for Sir Christopher Wren. 
Claims for having designed its steeple or spire, 
which was erected many years after the edifice 
was built, have been made for Benjamin Frank¬ 
lin, and for John Harrison. 

It might be well to examine some of these 
claims. Sir Christopher Wren inconsiderately 
died four years before the church was begun, but 
the basis for this claim is not altogether without 
virtue, because the body of the church, exteriorily, 
is more or less a copy of Wren's Church of St. An¬ 
drew by the Wardrobe, in London. The similar- 


41 


ity is so striking that one might be forgiven for 
making the claim. However, there is no evidence 
that the plans of St. Andrew's was in the posses¬ 
sion of the Philadelphia builders, and if there 
were it could be shown that the original design 
was departed from in many particulars. The 
main feature that was copied is the double row 
of windows, which is unusual in old London city 
churches. The tower that is attached to St. An¬ 
drew's is altogether different from that of Christ 
Church. It also is without a steeple. Again, the 
east front of Christ Church is not like that of 
the London edifice mentioned. 

At the same time there has been no evidence 
produced to show that Dr. Kearsley had any tal¬ 
ent for drawing or designing, athough he was 
admitted to have been a learned and well-in¬ 
formed man. He was the chairman of the com¬ 
mittee that undertook the erection of Christ 
Church, and even started the men digging for the 
foundations before the subscriptions had war¬ 
ranted it. That he superintended the work and 
that his wide knowledge was useful to the build¬ 
ers, must be acknowledged. 

The evidence points to John Harrison as the 
real architect and designer of the church. The 
records definitely state that his design for the 
spire was accepted, and it is quite likely that he 
made the original studies for the church, which 


42 


caused his work to be so admirably fitted to the 
structure already in place. What, if anything, 
Franklin had to do with the designs also passes 
understanding, excepting for the fact that virtu¬ 
ally every improvement in Philadelphia in the 
Eighteenth Century has been ascribed to this 
many-sided and very practical man. He may 
have given advice, as it is believed he gave a 
subscription, but that probably is all he contribu¬ 
ted. The first steeple built in 1751 soon fell into 
decay and Robert Smith was called upon to re¬ 
build it in 1771. 

The Carpenters' Company has a tradition 
that Robert Smith, one of their early members, 
built so much of Christ Church as was erected 
between 1751 and 1755. If this is true, then 
Harrison must have been regarded as a better 
architect than Smith, who has been given credit 
for much of the drafting of the State House, now 
Independence Hall. Smith was concerned in the 
construction of several public buildings that were 
erected in the middle Eighteenth Century in 
Philadelphia, but they are important enough to 
be treated of more fully later. 

Some majestic examples of Georgian archi¬ 
tecture that were erected in and around Philadel¬ 
phia in the middle of the Eighteenth Century 
still survive. One of these is the house of John 
Bartram, the first native American botanist, 


43 


whose place has been a public park for the last 
twenty years. The statement has been made over 
and over again that Bartram erected the building 
with his own hands. This interpreted may mean 
that he designed the structure, and employed 
others to assist him in its construction. 

As there is nothing exactly like the design 
of Bartram’s house either in this country or in 
England, it may be reasonable to assume that he 
at least was its architect. While it contains many 
fine features, the building as a whole is decidedly 
the creation of an amateur, rather than of a pro¬ 
fessional architect and builder. The property 
was acquired by Bartram in 1727, and it is pre¬ 
sumed that not long afterwards he began the 
erection of his home. 

It was about the same time that Stenton, the 
home of James Logan, Secretary of the Province, 
was built, and it is within reason to assume that 
its proprietor, who was a fine classical scholar, 
a widely-read man, and the first book collector 
in America, may have been its designer. It is 
not so easy, however, to indicate who was the 
architect for Mt. Pleasant, the ancient mansion 
in Fairmount Park, which was erected by Cap¬ 
tain John MacPherson not long before the Revolu¬ 
tionary War, but as it contains several features 

that were part and parcel of the design of Joseph 
Wharton’s house, Walnut Grove, which was built 


44 


in 1735, and which became historic on account 
of having been the scene of the gorgeous pagean¬ 
try of the Meschianza during the British occu¬ 
pation of the city in 1777, it may have been a 
free rendering of the latter structure which also 
might be ascribed to John Harrison. 




Early Philadelphia 
Architects and Engineers 


B y 

JOSEPH JACKSON 


III 


Philadelphia 

MCMXXII 








Ill 

AMATEUR ARCHITECTS 

and 

PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS 




INDEPENDENCE HALL IN 4763- /77X. 







Ill 


AMATEUR ARCHITECTS 

and 

PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS 


HE building which for the last fifty years at 



least Philadelphians have consistently called 


**■ Independence Hall, was, as is well known, 
originally erected as a State House for the Prov¬ 
ince of Pennsylvania. Looking back at its his¬ 
tory for the last 190 years, one finds that long 
before the Revolution it was regarded more highly 
than any other building in the city. It was the 
show place for distinguished travelers—and there 
were a few of them who braved the dangers of 
the Atlantic before this country broke the yoke 
which bound it to Great Britain—and the never- 
ending pride of all dwellers in the Quaker City. 
It easily was the most pretentious building of its 
kind in America for a quarter century after its 
erection. 

It was probably one of the first buildings to 
be constructed in this country to which a large 
amount of planning preceded the actual work of 
construction. Also, with its adjoining buildings, 
it formed the first civic or governmental group 
of structures that probably ever had been pro¬ 
jected before its advent. 

And this structure, or group, was projected, 
planned, designed and erected before there was a 


49 


single professional architect in this country, and 
before there was an engineer, worthy of the name, 
excepting such military engineers as were at¬ 
tached to various British commands assigned to 
the Colonies. In passing it might be mentioned 
that if any of these military engineers ever dis¬ 
played any interest in the construction of build¬ 
ings other than barracks, which were of the simp¬ 
lest design, their names have not been preserved 
for a curious posterity. 

The State House was the design and the idea 
of a Philadelphia lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, who, 
so far as is known, had no knowledge either of 
drawing or of building, but he did know the law, 
as was proven by his defense of the New York 
printer, John Peter Zenger, who had been ar¬ 
rested and confined for libeling the Government 
of New York, in 1734. 

Although Hamilton was one of the most re¬ 
markable men of his time and held many high 
offices in the Government of the Province of Penn¬ 
sylvania, very little is known of his antecedents. 
Indeed, the very year of his birth is not known 
with exactness. It is believed that he was born 
in Scotland about the year 1676. As a matter of 
fact, even his name is not by any means certain. 
He always was known as Hamilton in Pennsyl¬ 
vania, but it is said that at one period in his life 
he was called Trent. At the same time, although 


50 


he was the greatest lawyer in the Colonies in his 
day, it does not appear to have been accurately 
ascertained where he studied for the bar or where 
he was first admitted to practice, but the records 
of Gray's Inn, London, note that “Mr. Andrew 
Hamilton, of Maryland, was admitted a member” 
January 27, 1712, and that he was called to the 
Bar the following February. 

He came to Virginia about the year 1697, or 
probably shortly after attaining his majority, but 
even this date is apocryphal, as is the story that 
he obtained employment as a steward of a planta¬ 
tion in Accomac County, Virginia, and that for a 
time he conducted a classical school in the same 
province. In Virginia also he is said to have 
married a rich widow, which naturally improved 
his fortunes. Indeed, he is said to have married 
three times. He removed to Maryland where he 
first began the practice of law, and in 1716 came 
to Philadelphia. His preeminence as a lawyer 
preceded him, for he had represented William 
Penn in several cases, and the very next year 
after he came to Philadelphia we find him Attor¬ 
ney-General of Pennsylvania, which was an un¬ 
usual honor to be bestowed upon a newcomer, and 
one who probably was not more than forty years 
of age. Honors upon him followed rapidly. He 
was appointed a Provincial Councilor, to which 
august body only aristocrats were admitted. Ham- 


51 


ilton at least had the aristocracy of genius to 
recommend him. 

In 1729 he was elected Speaker of the As¬ 
sembly, and he was the leader of that body, al¬ 
though it appears that he accepted the office ai 
some inconvenience to himself, for he was a very 
busy man. However, he not only never neglected 
his public duties but was the most progressive and 
generous man in the Assembly, as was proven 
by his attitude toward the erection of the State 
House. 

Almost immediately after his selection as 
Speaker, Hamilton drafted an Act appropriating 
£2000 toward the erection of a house for the 
General Assembly, which up to that time had been 
obliged to hire private houses for its sittings. 
Hamilton's draft is still in existence, and it shows 
corrections and additions in his handwriting. The 
Assembly appointed Hamilton, Dr. John Kearsley 
and Thomas Lawrence a commission to set about 
the work. 

Kearsley had been active in the building of 
Christ Church, and his success in that direction 
evidently gave him the opinion that he was the 
proper authority to see a State House through 
the process of construction. It appears that a 
third of the £2000 was paid to each member of 
the Commission to proceed with the work. Ham- 


52 



CARPENTERS’ HALL 
Designed by Robert Smith 



















ilton immediately began the purchase of ground 
on the square bounded by Walnut and Chestnut, 
and Fifth and Sixth Streets, and he continued to 
buy lots on this square until the year 1738. The 
Assembly, upon his submission of his purchases, 
adopted the site, but the other members of the 
Commission did not appear to be submissive to 
Hamilton's leadership. Consequently work was 
delayed. 

It has been stated that Kearsley had a design 
for the building and that he had in view another 
site, but if he had a design it has long been for¬ 
gotten, while the one that actually was followed 
has been recovered, and is to be seen in the Manu¬ 
script Room of the Historical Society of Penn¬ 
sylvania. Whether the design actually was drawn 
by Hamilton cannot be stated with certainty. But 
it can be asserted that the few directions written 
upon the parchment drawing are in the hand of 
the great lawyer. 

The design comprises a front elevation, that 
was closely followed by the builders, and two floor 
plans. The front elevation also pictures two wing 
buildings, connected with the central building by 
arcades. While the drawing is not the work of 
an accomplished, practical architect, the fact that 
it has been drawn upon a sheet of parchment 
would lend color to the prevailing idea that Ham¬ 
ilton actually drafted it. Parchment was a com- 


54 


mon article in the office of a lawyer of the period, 
for all deeds and indentures had to be drawn up 
upon parchment in those days in submission to 
legal custom. The drawing is apparently to scale, 
and, indeed, the dimensions are given in figures. 
The floor plans are roughly drawn, and evidently 
intended only as a guide for the actual builders. 

In the published history of the Carpenters’ 
Company, the statement appears that the State 
House was erected from the plans by Robert 
Smith, “assisted by the amateur labors of Rev. 
J. Kearsley.” While one cannot be sure of the 
correctness of the statement so far as relates to 
Robert Smith, it might be pointed out in passing 
that Doctor Kearsley was not a clergyman, but a 
physician, and it is rather well established that 
his plan was not the one adopted by the Commis¬ 
sion, of which he was a member. 

It is quite possible that Doctor Kearsley made 
valuable suggestions to the Commission, but he 
was not a lawyef, and probably was not suffi¬ 
ciently familiar with what was demanded of a 
State House, which should adequately provide for 
the seat of Provincial Government. Hamilton’s 
plan provided for a Provincial Supreme Court 
Room, and otherwise took heed of the needs of 
the various departments of the Government. He 
also had the vision to see the advisability of hav¬ 
ing a group of Government buildings, where all 


55 


the affairs of the Province, not strictly local, or 
municipal, could be transacted. 

Robert Smith, who had considerable reputa¬ 
tion as an architect-builder, undoubtedly was con¬ 
sulted, but he did not alone build the State House. 
It is definitely known that the actual builders 
were two other members of the Carpenters' Com¬ 
pany. These were Edward Woolley and Ebenezer 
Tomlinson. The two builders were house carpen¬ 
ters and joiners, and this fact is shown plainly 
in a petition to the Assembly, signed by Woolley 
and Tomlinson, asking just what work they were 
to perform for thirty shillings a square . This 
petition was presented in August, 1732, which 
would indicate that work had not actually been 
begun at that time. In the December following 
the house carpenters employed on the work made 
a request for more money, alleging the extra¬ 
ordinary trouble and expenses they had been put 
to in carrying on the construction. The Assembly 
did not grant them the relief they sought, but laid 
the petition on the table. 

The two buildings that were to adjoin the 
State House, Hamilton explained, were designed 
as repositories for the State archives, and for 
the offices of the Trustees of the General Loan 
Office, and Rolls Office. These two buildings were 
estimated to cost not more than £400 each. In 
those days they had a very neat way of keeping 


56 



GIRARD NATIONAL BANK 
Designed by Samuel Blodget 























down the cost—the Assembly merely passed an 
Act appropriating not more than a certain sum 
for a building instead of asking bids. It seems 
to have been left to the Commission to have the 
work done for the amount allowed. 

Clever as Hamilton was, even he could not 
resist the pressure of current prices both of ma¬ 
terial and labor. He realized that and actually 
paid out of his own pocket the extra amounts 
needed to carry the building toward completion. 
He also purchased the properties at the corners 
of Fifth and Sixth Streets on Chestnut Street, 
which had not been secured. This he did in 1735 
at his own risk, and was the legal holder. He had 
schemed a grand Civic group^on the square, and 
finally long after he was dead this work was 
brought to completion by the erection of the Dis¬ 
trict Court House (Congress Hall) at the Sixth 
Street corner, and of the City Hall, at the Fifth 
Street corner. The Columbia Magazine, for Jan¬ 
uary, 1790, shows the group, excepting the City 
Hall, which was not erected at the time. It also 
shows the other important buildings which then 
surrounded this group. These structures were 
the Episcopal Academy, the District Court House, 
the State House, Philosophical Hall, the Philadel¬ 
phia Library, and in the distance a glimpse of 
the cupola of Carpenters’ Hall was shown. While 
the group may not be impressive in the present 


58 


day, it should be remembered that nothing like 
it had been attempted in any city, in this country 
at least, up to that time. Civic centres are now 
to be found in numerous new cities and small 
towns, and the idea is being more than ever advo¬ 
cated. But here we see the idea was conceived 
and partly carried into effect almost two hundred 
years ago. 

In January, 1736, the Provincial Assembly 
held its first sitting in the State House which had 
been so far completed that the assembly rooms 
could be used. It is said that the two wing build¬ 
ings which had been designed for offices and for 
the archives, were also in readiness for occupa¬ 
tion. At this t^~ti the main part of his design 
having been completed, Hamilton made a report 
of his stewardship to the Assembly sitting as a 
Committee of the Whole. His statement is of in¬ 
terest, showing as it does, that he had advanced 
a considerable sum from his own pocket to see 
the work to the end. The exact sum advanced 
by Hamilton during the five years he superin¬ 
tended the erection of the State House, was £1429, 
4s. 8d. His fellow members of the Commission 
each had a balance of the sums appropriated by 
the Assembly for the work, and were directed to 
pay over these sums to Mr. Hamilton, while it 
was directed that the Loan Office reimburse Ham¬ 
ilton with the balance due him. 


59 


It does not seem to be a matter of so much 
interest who drew the designs of the State House, 
since it is very well established that Hamilton 
was father of the idea, and furthermore, financed 
the building. 

It would appear that Hamilton, in addition 
to financing the construction of the State House, 
was likewise responsible for furnishing the build¬ 
ing, for there are notes in the records of the 
Assembly showing that in 1739 payments were 
made to him for procuring materials for building 
the wall around the back of the State House Yard, 
and for furnishing the legislative halls as well. 
Hamilton retired this year, having reached an age 
when it was then thought ihe nroper thing for 
men to abstain from active pursuits, although not 
many men of sixty-three would think of retiring 
in the present age. Hamilton went to live on his 
fine estate, at Bush Hill, and died there in 1747 
after having been ill for four days with yellow 
fever. 

Fortunately we have the names of all the 
workmen who built the State House. The name 
of Robert Smith does not appear among them. 
We have the bill of Edmund Woolley, who built 
the tower in 1741, for his expenses for “raising 
the tower,” or for the food consumed at the mer¬ 
rymaking which signalized the end of the work. 

In those days there was considerable cere- 


60 



CENTRAL BUILDING, PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL 

Built about 1800 








mony observed about the completion of any great 
building of a public character. The workmen re¬ 
garded the occasion as a time for eating and drink¬ 
ing, for which the owner of the building always 
paid. From Woolley’s bill, which was itemized, 
it seems that he spent fourteen pounds, twelve 
shillings and eight pence for the entertainment, 
which included one and a half barrels of beer, a 
statement which will occasion some surprise in 
these days of dryness. 

The men employed on the original structure 
were: Edmund Woolley and Ebenezer Tomlin¬ 
son, Chief Carpenters; John Harrison and John 
Shuter, carpenters; Daniel Jones, James Stoops, 
Benjamin Fairman, bricklayers; Thomas Shoe¬ 
maker, Robert Hinds, Thomas Pegler, Joseph 
Hitchcock and Thomas Boude bricklayers; Jona¬ 
than Palmer, James Savage and Thomas Redman, 
stonemasons; William Holland, marble mason; 
Edward Palmer, lime; Thomas Kerr, plasterer; 
Bryan Wilkinson and Thomas Harding, carvers; 
Plunket Fleeson, upholsterer; Thomas Ellis, glaz¬ 
ier"; Philip Syng, silversmith; William Leach and 
Gustavus Hesselius, painters; Lewis Brahl, stove 
maker; Thomas Godfrey, glazier and chief meas¬ 
urer of the work. In addition to these, whose 
work is specified, there were also employed the 
following: James Child, Humphrey Jones, Daniel 
Palmer, Isaac Sonnecliff, Jacob Shoemaker, En- 

62 


glebert Lock, Evan Davis, Jonathan Robinson and 
Thomas Leach. 

From the above list it would appear that the 
bricks for the work were made either on the 
grounds or in the immediate vicinity and that 
even lime was burned on the job for use in the 
mortar. Godfrey, mentioned in the list, was the in¬ 
ventor of the mariner's quadrant. He was a friend 
of Franklin, and one of the original founders of 
the Junto, which in time became the American 
Philosophical Society. 

The next important building to be projected 
and erected in Philadelphia, was the Pennsylvania 
Hospital, on a lot partly provided for it by the 
Proprietaries, on the block bounded by Eighth 
and Ninth, and Spruce and Pine Streets. 

Like the State House, this project was 
designed on a scale that was far ahead of any¬ 
thing of the kind heretofore planned in America, 
and, indeed, any city in Europe at the time might 
have been proud of having in prospect so large 
and important a hospital. Samuel Rhoads, one 
of the early members of the Carpenters’ Com¬ 
pany, of which he served as Master from 1780 
until his death in 1784, was a house carpenter, 
and, evidently, from the design he laid before 
the managers of the Hospital, of which he was 
one of the founders, a most capable architect as 
well. 


63 


His design was engraved on a large plate 
long before the hospital was entirely completed, 
and it shows what should be recognized as a land¬ 
mark in architecture in this country, or, at least 
in this city. The plan exhibited a large central 
building, connected with which were two end 
structures, all physically connected. The wing 
buildings were to be capped with cupolas. That 
is the feature which it is desired to emphasize, 
because until that time, 1755, this feature does 
not appear to have been used in this country, and 
for a long period afterward it was successively 
copied on various public or semi-public buildings. 

Like many another prominent man of his 
time in Philadelphia, Samuel Rhoads was a friena 
of Franklin. He was associated with him in the 
founding of the Philosophical Society. Born in 
Philadelphia in 1711, he became a member of 
the City Council in 1741, and in 1761 was elected 
to the Assembly at the time Franklin was in that 
body, and was Mayor of the city in 1774. He was 
one of the original subscribers and one of the 
first board of managers of the Pennsylvania Hos¬ 
pital. 

In 1754 he submitted a design for the pro¬ 
posed hospital building, property having been ac¬ 
quired by purchase and by a grant from the Penns 
for that purpose. He also was selected to super¬ 
intend the work of construction of the new build- 


64 


ings. He was several times elected to the Assem¬ 
bly, and was for a time one of the justices of peace 
in his native city. Rhoads also was long a direc¬ 
tor in the Philadelphia Library, which was an¬ 
other outgrowth of Franklin's Junto. 

The Pine Street facade of the hospital, in 
part, is as Rhoads designed it, but the central 
building differs greatly from the original design, 
and having been put up about 1800, is said to 
have been the work of John Dorsey, a wealthy 
auctioneer. It is probable that Mr. Dorsey merely 
suggested the design and that it was the work of 
another, possibly of Latrobe, although his name 
never has been connected with it. It differs 
considerably from the general architecture of the 
building, and, in its way, seems to be a step in 
the direction of improvement. Were it not that 
Doctor Thornton's name has not been connected 
with the institution one might easily credit him 
with the design. The rather complete history of 
the Hospital, published in 1895, gives no hint of 
the source of the architecture. 

The eastern wing of the Hospital was occu¬ 
pied about 1756, and the western wing was com¬ 
pleted in 1796. Not long afterward the central 
structure was commenced. Rhoads, in 1775, while 
Mayor of the city, was on a committee of the City 
Council to secure funds for the erection of a Dis- 


65 


trict Court House and for a City Hall on the State 
House block. This committee reported with plans 
for the buildings, and as each of them was pro¬ 
vided with cupolas, it is not too much to assert 
that the design of these buildings, which only in 
recent years have been restored to something near 
their original condition, were designed by Samuel 
Rhoads. 

Robert Smith, one of the early members of 
the Carpenters’ Company, was not only a master 
carpenter, but a designer of buildings as well. He 
was admitted a member in 1736, and occupied 
many positions of trust in the organization until 
his death in 1777. When the time came to erect 
a hall for the society Smith's name heads the list 
of subscribers of shares. He took twenty such 
shares, which appears to have been the limit, for 
only four other members took so many.- 

Not a great deal is known of his career, but 
from the manuscripts in the Historical Society 
of Pennsylvania something of his active life comes 
to the surface He was born about the year 1710. 
It would appear that he spent at least a part of 
his life in what is now Delaware, but which in the 
early part of the eighteenth century was referred 
to as the Three Lower Counties on the Delaware. 
There is a record of him having figured in a case 
when a Grant to Lord Baltimore was being op¬ 
posed. This was in 1730. Another paper, dated 


66 


1735, has mention of him on a Grand Jury serving 
in the Three Lower Counties. Of course, it is 
just possible that these references denote another 
Robert Smith, but the inference is that Smith 
came to Philadelphia after that time, and took up 
his trade of carpentering. 

There is a statement that he built Christ 
Church between the years 1751 and 1755, but 
there is really nothing to substantiate this. There 
is, however, a record of Smith having been called 
in to examine the steeple of Christ Church in 1771, 
when it was found to be in such a delapidated con¬ 
dition as to cause its removal and substitution. 
It is quite likely that Smith was called upon to 
remove the old and build the new spire, and from 
this circumstance may have originated the tra¬ 
dition. 

There is in the Historical Society’s collection 
a contract and warrant signed by Smith, under 
which he agreed to erect two three-story brick 
dwellings on Third Street for Mrs. Mary Maddox. 
These documents are dated 1763 and 1764. These 
operators were to cost £2250 “Lawful money of 
Pennsylvania.” The cost might therefore be com¬ 
puted to be about $6000 at that time, but, if one 
took the present purchasing values, it would be 
nearer $10,000 for the two houses, which would 
indicate that Mrs. Maddox did not pay too dearly 
for her work, considering the strong character of 


67 


the construction of the period. It might be men¬ 
tioned in passing that Mrs. Mary Maddox lived 
until 1783, or, until her 102d year. 

Smith, if he is the same mentioned in the 
manuscripts, had a warrant for 100 acres of land 
in Sussex, Delaware, but it appears by a document 
dated 1742 that he forfeited his concession by his 
non-compliance with certain conditions. This 
leads to the inference that this was our Robert 
Smith, and that his continued residence in Phila¬ 
delphia, where he had built up a good business, 
caused him to neglect his Delaware concession. 

Smith’s first important work was the building 
of Carpenters’ Hall, which was not so mucft or a 
feat in itself, but it has since become historic by 
reason of its associations both with the first sit¬ 
ting of the Continental Congress, and from hav¬ 
ing been the early home of many a great Phila¬ 
delphia institution. Smith drew the plans for 
the building and, as chairman of the Committee 
to erect the hall, was in charge of its construction. 
His last work of importance, and this was the 
largest building he ever erected, was the Walnut 
Street Jail, which occupied the southeast corner 
of Walnut and Sixth Streets, running almost half 
way along that street to Fifth Street and extend¬ 
ing south to Locust Street. This was erected in 
1774-5, about the time the finishing touches were 
being given to Carpenters’ Hall. 


68 


Smith is said to have been a native of Glas¬ 
gow, Scotland, and a member of the Society of 
Friends. Certainly he was a member of the St. 
Andrew's Society in 1752. He is said to have been 
the architect of Zion Lutheran Church, which 
stood at Fourth and Cherry Streets, and long re¬ 
garded as a beautiful piece of church architecture. 
He likewise was the architect of the original Nas¬ 
sau Hall, Princeton. During the Revolution he 
acted as engineer for the local defense, and built 
the chevaux-de-frise for the obstruction of the 
Delaware River. By all odds he was the most dis¬ 
tinguished architect in Philadelphia during the 
middle eighteenth century. Westcott states that 
he was only fifty-five years of age at the time of 
his death in 1777, which cannot be correct, for he 
would have been only three years old when he 
was admitted to the Carpenters’ Company. 

The first attempt to construct a building upon 
Greek models was made in 1794 when the First 
Presbyterian Church, the building which succeed¬ 
ed the “Old Buttonwood'’ Church at the corner of 
the present Bank and Market Streets was erected. 
The design of the facade consisted of four plain 
pillars, surmounted by Corinthian capitals, rest¬ 
ing on a platform and supporting a pediment. The 
design was not, of course, in pure style, being an 
adaptation, but it was the first time so elaborate 
an attempt had been made to transplant in Phila- 


69 


delphia the Greek form in its larger significance, 
for, of course, the so-called Colonial style had 
its origin in the Greek. 

There does not appear to be any record of 
the name of the designer of this structure, but it 
is strongly suspected that it was the apprentice 
work of Samuel Blodget, whose greater and more 
successful effort was the fagade of the First Bank 
of the United States, now the Girard National 
Bank, Third and Dock Streets. This building was 
erected in 1796-7. 

Blodget was a native of Massachusetts and 
a successful merchant. He had a taste for archi¬ 
tecture, and for speculation. While residing in 
Philadelphia he married Rebecca, a beautiful 
daughter of Provost William Smith of the Uni¬ 
versity of Pennsylvania, whose portrait by Stuart 
is so well remembered. 

Blodget was an enterprising person, and the 
manner in which he took hold of lots for specula¬ 
tive purposes in the City of Washington, then 
being.laid out and built, indicates that he was 
something of a plunger. He purchased a large 
number of lots from the syndicate in which Rob¬ 
ert Morris was involved. He held a lottery, the 
first grand prize in which was to be a handsome 
$50,000 tavern, called Blodget’s Hotel, but at the 
time unfinished. His lottery scheme did not meet 
with the approval either of President Washing- 


70 


ton, or of the newspaper in Washington. The lat¬ 
ter intimated that the lottery never would be 
brought to completion, as there were only about 
100 tickets a week drawn, and there were 50,000 
tickets in all. However, Blodget did make money 
on his speculation, in which he was more fortu¬ 
nate than Morris. 

As Blodget was always styled Samuel Blod¬ 
get, Jr., it is presumed that he was a son of 
Samuel Blodget, the wealthy inventor, who died in 
Massachusetts in 1807. The junior Blodget was 
at one time Superintendent of the Federal City. 





IV 

THORTON, L’ENFANT 
and LATROBE 


9 


r* 


PHILADELPHIA LIBRARY IN 1860 
Designed by Dr. William Thornton 









IV 


THORTON, L’ENFANT 
and LATROBE 


LTHOUGH the Library Company of Phila¬ 



delphia has, especially in its Loganian Col- 


A lection, one of the rarest assemblages of 
books in Philadelphia, it has not preserved the 
plans of its first library building, the one which 
stood in Fifth Street at the corner of Sansom, 
which is still recalled by many Philadelphians. 
That structure, in its time, was one of the show 
places in the city for those who liked to visit 
historic spots. Probably many who entered the 
ancient building had an idea that Franklin, him¬ 
self, was a frequent caller. Of course, the build¬ 
ing was not completed until after the great phil¬ 
osopher’s death, but he was consulted about the 
building while it was only a project. 

It would be of more than ordinary interest 
if the original drawings of the old library build¬ 
ing could be recovered, for it displayed consider¬ 
able architectural merit, and its history is of even 
greater importance, because the man who made 
the design was an amateur, but one whose talents 
were frequently drawn upon to furnish architec¬ 
tural ideas for some of the public buildings in 
the then new city of Washington. 

This architect was a physician, named Wil- 


liam Thornton. In the Journal of Latrobe it is 
said that Doctor Thornton’s own account of his 
architectural education was that he had acquired 
it by a week’s study among the works that he 
found in the Philadelphia Library. There seems 
to be no reason to doubt the correctness of this 
statement, for it is known that the Doctor was 
a member of the Library Company, and was cred¬ 
ited with having been a great student. For those 
who want to learn many of the details of Doctor 
Thornton’s busy life, the article by Allen C. Clark, 
Esq., of Washington, read before the Columbia 
Historical Society, which has been printed in its 
Records, may be recommended. The majority of 
the facts about Doctor Thornton given in this 
chapter have been taken from Mr. Clark’s pub¬ 
lication. 

Thornton, who was a member of the Society 
of Friends, was born in 1761 on the Island Jost 
van Dyke, in the West Indies. It seems that his 
parents were from Lancaster, England, and went 
out with a settlement of Friends to the Virgin 
Isles. The settlement had been begun twenty 
years before this time, and the meetings were 
held in the Fat Hog Meeting House at Tortola. 

While young Thornton was still a small boy 
he was sent to England, where he attended school 
in Lancaster, where one of his grandmothers 


76 


lived. At this period it appears he had a step¬ 
father, the Honorable Thomas Thomasson, and 
for a time after leaving school he lived with him 
in London. When he was twenty he was sent to 
Edinburgh University. After having been a pupil 
at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, for the 
prescribed period, he was graduated in medicine 
in 1784. 

During all of his university career, young 
Thornton took a deep interest in antiquarian mat¬ 
ters. Even in his youth he is said to have been 
very skillful with the pen, as later he was also 
with the brush, for there is in existence more 
than one portrait or other picture painted by him, 
that display ability far beyond that found in the 
usual respectable, talented amateur. One of his 
portraits is of his wife, a miniature that would 
do credit to any miniaturist of his period. 

Thornton continued his studies in Paris, 
where he moved in the first social circles, among 
his friends being the Countess de Beauharnias, 
whose husband was uncle to the first husband of 
Napoleon's Josephine. In 1786 Doctor Thornton 
returned to America. He first visited the Island 
of Tortola, and then came to the United States. 
He appears to have stopped in New York and 
then to have gone to Wilmington, where he took 
the oath of fidelity in 1788. 


Most of the time between 1786 and 1790, 
Thornton lived in Philadelphia, boarding with a 
Mrs. House, who kept a select boarding house at 
the southeast corner of Fifth and Market Streets. 
The youthful physician later lived at Tenth Street 
and Ridge Avenue, where he practiced his pro¬ 
fession. He became acquainted with Franklin, 
and there is preserved in Washington a brief In¬ 
vitation from the sage to him to take dinner with 
him. 

When it was determined to erect a building 
for the Library which had been housed inconven¬ 
iently in Carpenters’ Hall, designs were sought 
for the proposed structure. It is stated by Mr. 
Clark that a competition was held and that Doc¬ 
tor Thornton’s plans were adjudged best. For 
this he was awarded a share of the Library stock, 
then valued at $40. 

The fagade of the Library building, as may 
be recalled by those who have seen it, either in 
situ or in any one of the various pictures of the 
structure, will appreciate that Doctor Thornton 
rather skillfully blended the classic with the mod¬ 
ern, and gave another trend to the Colonial style 
then beginning to disappear. The marked re¬ 
semblance between this fagade and that of the 
Pennsylvania Hospitals central structure front¬ 
ing on Pine Street, as was pointed out in the last 



, M. D. 


WILLIAM THORNTON 










chapter, is so striking that one may be pardoned 
for believing that if Doctor Thornton was not 
the architect of both, his design of the Library 
was used to good purpose by the architect of the 
hospital structure. There are, indeed, differences, 
but in the main, the same use is made of the 
flat column, and the same treatment of the brick¬ 
work seem to have been followed. 

In October, 1790, Doctor Thornton married 
Anna Maria Brodeau, daughter of a Quakeress, 
who kept a boarding school for young ladies at 
No. 2 Lodge Alley, a small thoroughfare, now 
named Moravian Street, which ran from Second 
to Third Streets. Her school was near Second 
Street. Thornton was a friend of John Fitch and 
a believer in his steamboat experiments. It is 
said that some of his suggestions were followed 
by Fitch, when he made that historic voyage on 
the Delaware River, which was not long after 
Doctor Thornton had come to Philadelphia to 
reside. 

After his marriage, Doctor Thornton took 
his bride to Tortola, and he was still in the West 
Indies when he heard of the advertisement of the 
Commissioners for the Federal City, for competi¬ 
tive plans for both the Capitol and for the Presi¬ 
dent's House. He wrote from Tortola requesting 
permission to enter the competition. The per- 

80 


mission must have been given for we find a letter 
to Thornton stating that his plans for the Capi¬ 
tol had been received. 

Of this plan, Washington spoke highly, ac¬ 
cording to an extract from one of the letters 
quoted by Mr. Clark. 

Under date of March 8, 1793, Washington 
wrote, “Grandeur, Simplicity and Convenience 
appear to be so well combined in this plan of 
Doctor Thornton's, that I have no doubt of its 
meeting that approbation from you, which I have 
given it upon an attentive inspection, and which 
it has received from all those who have seen it 
and are considered Judges of such things.” 

Doctor Thornton was invited to Washington, 
and not only were his plans accepted but he was 
offered the superintendency of the construction, 
a position he declined. The prize offered was $500 
and a lot of the value of £100, for in those days 
it was customary to still adhere to a large extent 
to the English system of moneys. It has been 
said by competent authority that the Capitol as 
subsequently erected, did not depart conspicuous¬ 
ly from Doctor Thornton's design. 

While Doctor Thornton was still in Tortola, 
after his marriage he wrote a treatise on lan¬ 
guage which won for him the Magellanic Gold 
Medal of the American Philosophical Society. 


81 


This essay, which was printed, although now 
rarely met with, bore the title, “Cadmus: or a 
Treatise on the Elements of Written Language.*’ 
It appears that this, too, was a dissertation that 
was for a competition. Again the Doctor, being 
far away in Tortola, was tardy, but while his 
essay was received ]>ate, Rittenhouse, then presi¬ 
dent of the Society, was attracted by it, recom¬ 
mended its acceptance and that its author should 
receive the award. 

Although Thornton studied medicine and re¬ 
ceived his diploma, and his degree, we hear next 
to nothing about his medical work, but a great 
deal of his artistic and scientific attainments. 
Within a few years he had won three prizes in 
open competition, none of them of the sort that 
one would expect a medical man to enter. It is 
plain that even in medicine Thornton was a tal¬ 
ented amateur, although possessing the qualifica¬ 
tions for the professional capacity. Mr. Clark 
says of him that in 1793, after his return from 
the West Indies, he set up a house at 192 Chest¬ 
nut Street, but in the Directory for that year he 
is set down as being a physician at Tenth Street 
and Ridge Road, and in the Directory for 1795 
there is no building in Chestnut Street bearing 
that number. 

The rest of Thornton's career is concerned 


82 





MAJOR PETER 
Redrawn 




CHARLES L’ENFANT 
from wood cut 

















with Washington, which city he called home for 
the remainder of his life. There is no use in fol¬ 
lowing him there. It should be said, however, 
that he designed the main building of the Uni¬ 
versity of Virginia, mainly at the suggestion of 
Thomas Jefferson. When he was at work upon 
the competition for the President's House and 
the Capitol at Washington, he said that he regret¬ 
ted he had not studied architecture, and began 
to apply himself to the art then, although he knew 
that he confronted several foreign professionals 
of training and of ability. 

He was a gifted poet, and a most genial man 
in society, notwithstanding an impediment in his 
speech. He was admitted everywhere, from the 
private circle of Washington, to the sets that in 
those days were regarded as exclusive. He was 
a man of cleverness and wit; was much traveled, 
having toured Europe with Count Adriani, a 
naturalist, and lived for a time in Paris. Few 
men of any rank in the United States at the time 
were so many-sided, or had so light a touch with 
all walks of life. He was universally liked and 
respected, and America’s greatest men and most 
fashionable women were pleased to number him, 
and his gracious wife, among their friends. 

Doctor Thornton’s scientific attainments, 
which were quite equal to those of his artistic 


talents, were responsible for his appointment to 
the head of the Patent Office. He was the first 
United States Commissioner of Patents, and con¬ 
tinued until within about a year of his death, 
which occurred in 1828, to head that Department. 
There are eight patents in his name for inven¬ 
tions, mainly improvements for steamboats, and 
firearms. The great sorrow of his life was his 
failure to obtain diplomatic appointment, although 
he was on more or less intimate terms with every 
President of the United States up to the time of 
his death. He never realized that such posts are 
reserved for politicians, and whatever else Thorn¬ 
ton was he was not a practical politician. 

Major Peter Charles L’Enfant was a resi¬ 
dent of Philadelphia for a year or two at the 
beginning of the Federal Government in this city. 
He had a rather melancholy career, and part of 
it, at least, was due to his own peculiar tempera¬ 
ment. He was talkative, emotional, and deter¬ 
mined to have his own way. Together these char¬ 
acteristics, and some of his erratic architecture, 
brought him into disfavor. Even Washington, 
who it seems was disposed to treat him with 
friendliness and generosity, finally removed him 
from office. 

L’Enfant had an honored, if not distin¬ 
guished, career in the American Army during the 


85 


Revolution. He had led a victorious assault upon 
the enemy and had been wounded in action. His 
career has not been related in any considerable 
detail, but he is chiefly noted for having laid out 
the city of Washington, and for having been the 
first to name it the Capital City. Even this really 
imposing work for a long time was only slightly 
regarded. It is now seen that in city planning 
he was a century ahead of his age. But it must 
be understood that he was primarily an engineer, 
and a military engineer particularly. As an archi¬ 
tect, such evidences as we have of his capacity, and 
they are to be found only in old prints of build¬ 
ings no longer in existence, do not display any 
marked ability of an artist. 

Major L'Enfant, who was born in Paris in 
1754, came to America in 1777, when he accom¬ 
panied the French engineer, Du Coudray. He 
served as a volunteer, and soon received a com¬ 
mission as captain of engineers in the Continental 
Army. For a time he was attached to the light 
infantry in the Army of the South. While lead¬ 
ing an advance in the assault on Savannah, under 
General Lincoln, L'Enfant was wounded. Dur¬ 
ing the Siege of Charleston, he was made a pris¬ 
oner, but subsequently was exchanged for a Hes¬ 
sian Captain, and after his release served as en¬ 
gineer under Washington. After the Revolution 


86 


he returned to France, where he was given a 
pension by the King, while Congress bestowed 
upon him the title of Major by Brevet. 

Like many of the French officers who had 
served in America during the Revolution, L'En- 
fant decided to return to this country, but the 
date of his return does not seem to have been 
settled with any degree of certainty. He was here 
just before the new Constitution went into effect, 
for Dunlap mentions that the first he knew of 
him was when he was directed to rebuild New 
York's City Hall, for the first session of the new 
Congress. This was in the early part of the year, 
1789. He had sufficient friends in Congress, or 
in the Government to secure a position, and very 
likely that it was at the suggestion of Washing¬ 
ton, himself, that L'Enfant was made Engineer 
of the United States. 

It is possible, even probable, that L'Enfant 
drew the plans for the enlargement of old Con¬ 
gress Hall in this City. It is well established 
that the building, then being finished and which 
had been accepted by Congress for the purpose of 
holding its sessions there, was too small to hold 
that body. An addition of about forty feet was 
added to the building on its southern end, and 
the internal arrangements had to be changed. It 
is believed that this work was accomplished un- 


87 


der the direction of L'Enfant. Some basis for this 
belief is to be found in the Journal of William 
Maclay, one of the first two Senators from Penn¬ 
sylvania. Under date of May 14, 1789, he men¬ 
tions a meeting of the Committee for dividing 
rooms, and also mentions that L’Enfant was pres¬ 
ent. “L’Enfant,” he wrote in his Journal, “was 
with us, and, like most Frenchmen, was so talka¬ 
tive that scarce a word could be said.” 

In 1790 L’Enfant, who had been entrusted 
with the plan for the new Federal City, presented 
his drawings, which were approved by President 
Washington, and by the Committee. These called 
for a city that might have been planned for the 
capital of a most populous country, yet the United 
States at the time had a smaller population than 
is now contained in the city of Greater New York. 
It provided grand views, wide streets, a park 
system, and for radial avenues, an innovation in 
this country, at least at that time. He also pro¬ 
vided the sites for both the Capitol and for the 
President’s House; for numerous public buildings, 
for monuments, as well as for a most picturesque 
environment. All this was to transform a rather 
plain, commonplace area of farm land into a great 
Capital. The idea was a grand one, and proved 
that L’Enfant had vision and imagination, so far 
as civic planning was concerned, but he was plan- 


88 


ning for a remote future, and not for immediate 
needs of a land that was but sparsely settled, and 
consequently made many enemies among the pull¬ 
backs of his time. 

L'Enfant stuck to his guns, and objected to 
the location of buildings that private owners in¬ 
sisted on erecting, claiming that some of them 
were designed to be placed directly over some of 
the streets that were on his plan. The eccentrici¬ 
ties and quarrels of the engineer finally caused 
him to be removed from his position. 

It was then that L'Enfant came to Philadel¬ 
phia, and began the erection of a wonderful man¬ 
sion for Robert Morris. Here, again, his wonder¬ 
ful vision and powerful imagination ran away 
with his head, and the failure of this project 
seems to have virtually ended the professional 
career of the French engineer and architect. 

Robert Morris, then the leading financier of 
the United States, and regarded as its richest 
man, purchased the block bounded by Walnut, 
Chestnut, Seventh and Eighth Streets, and upon 
this p'ot L'Enfant was to erect a splendid dwell¬ 
ing for this merchant prince. The house never 
was completed, owing, it is claimed, to the failure 
of Morris, whose immense holdings in the new 
Federal City had been too much for him to carry 
when creditors clamored for ready cash. 


89 


It has been stated that L'Enfant's profigality 
in the erection of the Morris house was the prime 
cause of the great financier's failure, but this 
probably is not the whole truth, for while un¬ 
doubtedly the French architect was rather reck¬ 
less in his spending of his patron's money, the 
cost of the house did not total sufficiently to alone 
account for the bankruptcy. 

From the picture we have of this house, 
which formed one of the views made by William 
Birch in 1800, it can be seen that the building was 
a monstrosity, and never could have reflected 
credit either upon the architect or the owner. 
Latrobe saw it when he came to Philadelphia to 
design the city's water works. At the time L'En¬ 
fant was supervising the Morris House, he was 
set to work to design and erect a building for the 
Dancing Assembly of Philadelphia, a subscrip¬ 
tion list having been circulated and signed by one 
hundred of the leading fashionable persons of the 
city. A lot of ground was secured, and even the 
foundations for the proposed building were laid, 
but the building never was completed. While 
the reason for the stoppage of work is not of 
record, it is intimated that it was due to the im¬ 
possible character of the architect’s plans, which 
probably were on a scale of grandeur not in keep¬ 
ing with the simplicity that always has charac- 


90 


terized this select institution of Philadelphia. 

L’Enfant, while he dwelt in Philadelphia, 
boarded at No. 4 North Eighth Street, and his 
name is to be found in the Directory for the year 
1794, thus assigned. Irritable, ambitious, feeling 
wronged, L'Enfant retired to a farm in Maryland, 
and died there in 1825. He died poor, although 
he was urged at times to make a claim to Congress 
for his work on the City of Washington, but he 
never followed the advice, having a proud spirit, 
as one of his make-up was likely to possess. 

Benjamin Henry Latrobe, who came to Phila¬ 
delphia just after the downfall of L'Enfant, has 
left, in a letter dated April 26, 1798, the best de¬ 
scription we have of the monstrosity which the 
French architect was erecting for Robert Morris. 
Latrobe declared that the architect never exhib¬ 
ited his drawings to any but Mr. Morris and his 
wife, and that no one in Philadelphia at the time 
could enlighten him on what the architect in¬ 
tended to produce. He declared that, although 
he “was in the pile he protested against any in¬ 
quiries from him as to the plan, for he could not 
possibly answer them. 1 ' 

“The external dimensions of the house," he 
continued, “are very large. I suppose the front 
must be at least one hundred and twenty feet 
long and I think the house is as yet in the most 


unfinished state possible, although much of the 
marble dressing is entirely completed in patches 
and the whole building covered in. The south 
front is not yet raised from the ground in the 
centre part, but part of each side is quite finished. 
The roof in the meantime carried by shares.” 

There is no need to follow Latrobe through 
the details, for they can be found in “The Journal 
of Latrobe,” published some years ago. However, 
a paragraph near the bottom of his letter might 
be illuminating. There he summarizes the archi¬ 
tectural appearance of this remarkable structure. 
“The whole mass,” he wrote, “altogether gives 
no idea at first sight to the mind sufficiently dis¬ 
tinct to leave an impression. I went several 
times to the spot and gazed upon it with aston¬ 
ishment before I could form any conception of 
its composition. It singularly made me wish to 
take a drawing of it, but the very bad weather 
prevented me. It is impossible to decide which 
of the two is the madder, the architect or his em¬ 
ployer. Both of them have been ruined by it.” 

It might be mentioned that the career of 
L'Enfant in Philadelphia almost ruined Latrobe, 
too, at the outset of his appearance here. He had 
a French name, was heralded as a great architect, 
and was known to be a foreigner. It is an un¬ 
fortunate characteristic of the mob that it never 


stops to reason. Latrobe was condemned at once 
as another extravagant French architect who 
would ruin the city and every one who employed 
him. 

But Latrobe was neither a Frenchman nor 
a man who would ruin one by his architectural 
work. He was born in England, in 1764, the son 
of the Rev. Benjamin Latrobe, a former English 
clergyman, who became a Moravian, and his wife, 
who was Ann Margaret Nutis, a native of Penn¬ 
sylvania. At eleven years of age he was an ac¬ 
complished draftsman, and about that time he 
was sent to a Moravian seminary in Saxony, un¬ 
til he was advanced enough to enter the Univer¬ 
sity at Leipsic. While in Germany, in a spirit of 
adventure, he made a campaign with the Prus¬ 
sian army, at the head of a company of Hussars, 
and was wounded in one of the two hot skirmishes 
in which his command was engaged. He resigned 
and returned to England in time to be present 
at his father's last illness. 

In choosing a profession he sought out 
Smeaton, the engineer, who had retired from ac¬ 
tive practice, but who assisted him with his ad¬ 
vice. The result of this suggestion was the en- 
trance of young Latrobe in the office of Cockrell, 
a celebrated London architect. This was about 
the year 1787. At that time young Latrobe aL 


93 


ready was far more familiar with the architecture 
of Europe than any of the young men in Cock¬ 
erell’s office, for after he had recovered from his 
wounds received while in the Prussian service, 
he toured Central Europe and visited many of 
the great buildings which were famed for their 
architectural style. He also was a good mathe¬ 
matician, and, it might be noted also, was a geolo¬ 
gist and mineralogist. 

Naturally it did not require one so well in¬ 
formed in the branches of his chosen profession 
to spend a long time acquiring the practical 
knowledge of a draughtsman and calculator in 
the office of a practicing architect. Not long after 
he had set up in business for himself in London 
he was appointed Surveyor of the Public Offices, 
in the British capital. He married the daughter 
of a well-known physician, and the couple had 
two children. Young Latrobe was well along on 
the road to success, when his wife died, and that 
sad event was the turning point in his career. The 
loss of his wife caused him to view with distaste 
the surroundings with which her memory was 
connected. So he set off for the United States 
which was to be his future home and the scene 
of his professional truimphs. 

Disposing of his estate in England, and re¬ 
fusing the offer of the office of Surveyor to the 


94 


Crown, which paid a salary of £1,000 per annum, 
Latrobe left his native land to come to that of his 
mother. He arrived at Norfolk, Va., after a voy¬ 
age of four months and four days, in March, 
1796. His letters of introduction assisted him 
greatly. While he loitered in Virginia he assisted 
many of his new acquaintances. He designed a 
staircase for one, a house for another, scribbled 
some verses for still another and even tuned a 
piano for a friend, all of which are mentioned 
merely to indicate his versatility. 

He went to Richmond, where he designed 
several public buildings, made examination and 
reported upon several engineering projects for 
Virginia companies; made geological reports of 
coal mines in parts of the same state, and became 
acquainted with some of Virginia’s most promi¬ 
nent men. Bushrod Washington was one of his 
friends, as was also Edmund Randolph, Chief 
Justice of the United States. On his many tours 
through Virginia he stopped at Mount Vernon 
where he met President Washington, and several 
sketches made by him of the Mount Vernon group 
are in existence. 

In those days Philadelphia was still the Fed¬ 
eral Capital, and also was the metropolis of the 
country. Every ambitious professional man 
made up his mind to at least visit that city. 


95 


Latrobe, in 1798, armed with some good letters 
of introduction which gave him entry into the 
city's best society, came to Philadelphia for a 
short visit. That visit resulted in some of his 
best remembered architectural and engineering 
work. 


V 

BENJAMIN H. LATROBE 







BENJAMIN HENRY LATROBE 














V 


BENJAMIN H. LATROBE 


LTHOUGH Latrobe's visit in the year 1798 



was more or less in the nature of a trip for 


A pleasure, nevertheless he was not insensible 
to the fact that there might be abundant oppor¬ 
tunity for him to engage in his art in Philadelphia. 
As a matter of fact, the short visit widened into 
one of years, for until 1804 Philadelphia was vir¬ 
tually the home of the engineer. 

With him he carried letters from some of the 
most prominent citzens of Virginia, who were 
known to Philadelphia's leading men. One of 
these letters served to introduce him to the Presi¬ 
dent of the Bank of Pennsylvania, Samuel M. Fox. 
Although the Bank of Pennsylvania was younger 
than the Bank of North America, it had double 
the capital of the other, and excepting only the 
Bank of the United States, was the largest in 
Philadelphia at the time. 

Yet it was less than six years old, and conse¬ 
quently occupied rather modest quarters in Lodge 
Alley, west of Second Street. At the time the 
Bank of the United States had been completed on 
Third Street. Judging by the standards of the 
time it was a magnificent structure, quite the most 


> 0 


imposing edifice in this country. Mr. Fox sought 
the advice of Latrobe regarding plans for a new 
building for his bank. He wanted something de¬ 
signed along classic lines, meaning something dis¬ 
playing influence of the ancient architecture of 
Greece or Rome. 

Seated at the dinner table with Mr. Fox one 
day the subject of a new bank building was dis¬ 
cussed. Latrobe securing paper and a pen rapidly 
sketched his idea for such a structure. It was a 
mere sketch, and afterward the architect said that 
what he did was done more in jest than in earnest. 
However, after he returned to Richmond, Vir¬ 
ginia, where he resided at the time, he was sur¬ 
prised to learn that his sketch had been adopted 
by the Directors of the institution. 

At the time the architect did not have with 
him a single work on architecture showing the or¬ 
der he had proposed. His library had been for¬ 
warded from England to him, but the vessel in 
which it was being carried was taken by a French 
privateer and his whole collection lost. However, 
from his own memory he designed the new bank 
from the temple of the Muses on the Ilyssus, near 
Athens, with two Ionic porticos of six columns 
each, supporting entablatures. The whole build¬ 
ing had a length of 125 feet and a width of 51 
feet. The material used was Pennsylvania mar¬ 
ble. The banking room was circular, and was 


100 


covered by a dome of marble, and lighted by a lan¬ 
tern in the center. The same scheme of architec¬ 
ture was continued in the little loges or entrances 
which ornamented each corner of the extensive 
grounds. It might be mentioned that the original 
Temple which served for the model had only four 
columns. 

Latrobe had been such a good student of archi¬ 
tecture, and had traveled so extensively through 
Europe, drawing and studying the best examples 
of style that when the officials of the bank 
wrote to him for detailed drawings and specifica¬ 
tions so they might proceed to erect the structure 
he had suggested, he had very little difficulty in 
being able to produce them. However, this con¬ 
tract changed the whole course of the architect's 
life. 

First, it brought him to Philadelphia to live. 
While he was here, he married again. The second 
Mrs. Latrobe was Miss Mary Hazlehurst, daugh¬ 
ter of Isaac Hazlehurst, one of the city's promi¬ 
nent merchants. From 1798 to 1804, Latrobe 
made Philadelphia his home, and during that pe¬ 
riod he added considerably to his reputation as an 
architect and engineer. 

His reputation as an engineer had preceded 
him, and while he was engaged upon the Bank of 
Pennsylvania the subject of a proper water sup¬ 
ply for Philadelphia which had been agitated for 


101 


some years was brought to a head by reason of 
the frequent appearance of deadly yellow fever 
here, which was attributed, among other things, 
to the insanitary method of using water from 
pumps which were erected upon almost all prop¬ 
erties, or at least to be found in every block of 
the built-up part of the city. 

Attention was also being given to a system of 
canals for the State, and sponsors for this im¬ 
provement were trying to have the city of Phila¬ 
delphia adopt their canals for its water supply. 
The principal proposition of this kind seems to 
have been that of the Delaware and Schuylkill 
Canal Company, which proposed to tap the Schuyl¬ 
kill river about fourteen miles northwest of the 
city and construct a navigation canal from that 
point down the east bank of that stream to the 
city at Fairmount, and thence across the country 
just north of the city, to the Delaware river. 

The main canal was to be tapped at Broad 
Street, and the water brought to a pond or reser¬ 
voir at what is now Broad and Callowhill Streets. 
This was to supply the city's water needs, for an¬ 
other canal was to bring the water from that point 
down Broad Street to South Street, and supply 
canals on the east and west streets. The water, 
of course, was to be brought by gravity. 

The absurdity of such a system as an urban 
water supply, which would be highly insanitary, 


102 


CENTRE SQUARE ENGINE HOUSE, 1801 


























did not seem to occur to the persons behind this 
visionary scheme, and, indeed, some of the canals 
really were dug. Among those who saw the faults 
of the plan, was Latrobe, and he came forward 
with the first real proposition for a water works. 
It was the first scheme of the kind that had been 
offered in this country up to that time, and it was 
regarded as less entitled to support, on account of 
its novelty, than the other scheme. However, La¬ 
trobe was listened to in the right quarters, and 
the contract was made for the necessary work. 

Latrobe's plan required the use of steam en¬ 
gines and pumps to raise the water and for this 
reason he was looked upon as a charlatan. His 
proposal to deliver water taken from the Schuyl¬ 
kill River right into the dwellings of the city was, 
in some quarters regarded as either ridiculous or 
dishonest, for it was not believed such a system 
could be worked, for it was not the day of mir¬ 
acles. 

The engineer, indeed, had a rather difficult 
time of it, and many of his troubles were with the 
engines made for the purpose by Nicholas I. 
Roosevelt, of New York, a brother of the grand¬ 
father of President Roosevelt. This Nicholas 
Roosevelt, however, although he lost money on 
his engines, succeeded in finally installing them 
and they worked—after a fashion. He had the 
confidence of Latrobe, however, and he married 


104 


the latter’s daughter. 

Latrobe's plan was to take the water from 
the Schuylkill River at a point just north of Chest¬ 
nut Street by gravity, and then raise it by pumps 
to a conduit, through which the water was drawn 
by steam pump to a central standpipe at Centre 
Square, the site of the present City Hall. From 
this standpipe, which gave the necessary pressure, 
the supply was allowed to fall into the conduits 
which carried the water to the various streets of 
the city. 

Latrobe knew that he was regarded as one 
not worthy of serious attention by the majority 
of the citizens of the city at the time, so he de¬ 
vised a scheme to change their opinion of him 
and his water works. On the eve of the day set 
for starting the system he worked all night to 
keep the faulty engines at work at Broad and 
Market Streets, and the following morning, when 
the early risers looked out of their windows they 
saw water running into the streets through the 
pipes. The sight converted them, and in a short 
time the handful of residents who had contracted 
for water increased in number. 

It was early in the year 1801 that the project 
of Latrobe finally was set to work to justify his 
claims. His plan, it should be understood, was 
only for the old city proper, or what at that time 
was comprised between South and Vine Streets 


105 


between the two rivers. Councils, having ac¬ 
cepted Latrobe's plan, raised a loan of $50,000, 
but before the system was in running order an¬ 
other $50,000 was needed. This, however, was 
forthcoming, because the success of the system 
was proven. In order to induce subscribers to 
the scheme, there was a three-year supply of water 
guaranteed them without charge. The moment it 
was seen that it really was possible to take the 
water from the Schuylkill River and deliver it 
in pipes into the dwellings of the city, the citizens 
changed their attitude from one of objection to 
enthusiastic approval. 

Broad and Market Streets, then the commons, 
was the site of engine house and of the reservoir. 
The building was designed by Latrobe, and car¬ 
ried out his classic taste in architecture, but, ow¬ 
ing to its peculiar shape some Philadelphians re¬ 
ferred to it rather irreverently as a pepper box. 
The building, which was circular in form, was 
constructed of Pennsylvania marble, which seems 
to have been the popular material for public build¬ 
ings here at the time. 

The engines furnished by Roosevelt was the 
one thorn in the side of the system from the start. 
It will scarcely be credited in these days that the 
boiler used was constructed of wood, but after ex¬ 
periencing its defects a cast iron boiler was sub¬ 
stituted. The Watering Committee of Council 


106 



V ' 


. ^_)UII|I«IHIH|- 






BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA 


From a photograph made in 1855 



























kept at Roosevelt's heels for a few years and the 
latter lost heavily by his contract, yet he had con¬ 
structed the largest engine and pump of its kind 
that ever had been used in this country up to that 
time. As a pioneer he had won approval, but did 
not receive the reward. 

Although the engine house in Centre Square 
was a pleasing object from the outside, its interior 
was entirely occupied by the engine, boiler and the 
two wooden tubs which were rather grandly la¬ 
beled reservoirs in the detailed drawing of the 
building which has been preserved. If he had done 
nothing else Latrobe had pointed the way to erect, 
tasteful structures for prosaic purposes. He also, 
by reason of establishing the engine house where 
he did, gave Philadelphia a beautiful little park, 
which, while it had been provided for in the orig¬ 
inal plan of Penn for his city, never up to that 
time had seen the light of improvement. For a 
quarter century Centre Square was the recreation 
centre for Philadelphia. It listened to oratory 
there on Fourth of July; it recruited its troops 
there during the War of 1812, and it gave its 
picnics there on all festive occasions. Moreover, 
the grounds were laid out with walks, and rows 
of Normandy poplars were planted. It was a cir¬ 
cle, instead of a square, however, but the crowds 
that promenaded out Market Streets on Sundays, 
and holidays, found it an inviting place to end 


108 


their stroll. Until Fairmount Park, which also 
was erected around the city water works—its sec¬ 
ond experiment in a watering system, Centre 
Square for years was the city’s only public park. 

The city was ripe for improvement at the 
time, and it was fortunate to have had at hand so 
successful an architect and engineer as Latrobe 
to suggest the kind of civic betterment it needed, 
and to design public buildings that immediately 
influenced its rising architects. One heard no 
more of fears for the ruin this “Frenchman” 
would bring upon Philadelphia. He was recog¬ 
nized as a man of achievement, and his works 
were soon the boast of every proud Philadelphian. 

Defective as his watering system in practice 
was, Latrobe must be credited with having been 
a pioneer in water works in this country. It 
should be remembered that he had to work with 
conduits of wood—tree trunks, with holes bored 
through them and held together with cast iron 
bands; that he had to work with engines larger 
than any that had before been tried. In other 
words everything he had to use in his scheme 
was more or less in an experimental stage, yet he 
demonstrated that what he had essayed could 
be done. 

While he was at work upon his water works 
plan, Latrobe opened an office in his residence, 
then numbered 186 Arch Street. This would be 


109 


the site of the present 716. In the City Directory 
for 1801 he is described as Engineer, but in the 
subsequent Directories he is more accurately set 
down as Engineer and Architect. He continued 
to reside in Arch Street until 1804, but was at 
work on projects in various parts of the country. 

Latrobe's engineering ability and experience 
caused him to be employed to survey a line for a 
canal connecting Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. 
He was still in charge of the work of erecting his 
bank building when he was, in 1799, sent out on 
the canal project. It was a period when there was 
a perfect craze for canals, for the country was 
increasing in population, commerce and industry, 
but improvements in transportation had not been 
able to keep pace with the expansion. Naturally 
the minds of the men of vision saw a place for the 
canal. They were being planned all over the east¬ 
ern part of the country. Many of them never ad¬ 
vanced further than a scheme; some were sur¬ 
veyed, and some were built. 

While he was in Virginia Latrobe had made 
similar surveys, and his presence in Philadelphia, 
and the knowledge that he had worked for canal 
companies in the South, caused the Philadelphia 
capitalists to engage him for the Chesapeake pro¬ 
ject. Latrobe made the survey and presented a 
plan; the company was incorporated in 1801, and 
work was actually begun, but the subscribers for 


110 


shares failed to pay in their installments, and 
this canal never was built. Some years later, the 
Chesapeake and the Delaware were connected by 
a canal, and in charge of the construction was the 
favorite pupil of Latrobe, William Strickland, 
whose route was said by Dunlap to be a more ex¬ 
pensive one than that laid out by his master, La¬ 
trobe. This statement, however, is to be taken 
with a grain of caution, because Strickland neg¬ 
lected to write an account of his achievements for 
Dunlap, when the latter was preparing his His¬ 
tory of the Arts of Design, and may have been 
disposed to be unfriendly. 

Latrobe was employed for several years on 
the canal, and during that period dwelt for a part 
of the time at New Castle, Delaware, although 
maintaining a residence and office on Arch Street, 
Philadelphia. He was still at work on the canal 
when President Jefferson called him to Washing¬ 
ton to take charge of the work on the Capitol, then 
unfinished, and more or less neglected. 

It was while he was at work on the canal that 
he received two of his most eminent pupils—Wil¬ 
liam Strickland and Robert Mills. The former, of 
whose career already something has been said in 
the chapter devoted to him, he regarded as his 
more promising assistant, although Mills already 
had had some architectural experience in the 
South, and had executed some commissions, not- 


111 


ably one for Jefferson on his mansion, Monticello. 
It should be explained here that in this instance 
Mr. Jefferson really was the architect himself, al¬ 
though Mr. Mills made the drawings for him. 

Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration 
of Independence, and subsequently President of 
the United States, was one of the foremost schol¬ 
ars in the country in his time. Not only were the 
works of the greatest literature in several lan¬ 
guages, including the Greek, his daily companions, 
but he was intensely interested in the sciences and 
in the arts of architecture, painting and sculpture. 
It was from his own library that the drawings for 
his home were borrowed, for he had a copy of Pal¬ 
ladio, probably one of the very few in the land 
at the time. Jefferson, being interested in archi¬ 
tecture, soon became interested in Latrobe, whom 
he seems to have known in Virginia. 

Certainly, he was regarded by the architect 
as one of his friends, and was frequently consulted 
on architectural matters having to do with the 
public buildings in Washington. When Jefferson 
became President and the capital was physically 
removed to Washington, he had Latrobe take up 
the neglected Capitol and other governmental 
structures and make his home in the Federal City. 

The fact that from 1804 until 1813 Washing¬ 
ton was the home of Latrobe indicates that sev¬ 
eral buildings once ornamenting Philadelphia and 


112 


usually attributed to him were really the work 
of one of his pupils. Thus, even in the History 
of the Bank of Philadelphia the statement is made 
as a matter of fact that Latrobe was the archi¬ 
tect of the bank's Gothic building that formerly 
stood at Fourth and Chestnut Streets, the site of 
the Wood Building. It also has been stated that 
Latrobe was the architect of the old building of 
the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts that 
formerly stood on Chestnut Street between Tenth 
and Eleventh Streets, the site now occupied by 
the Chestnut Street Opera House. While it is pos¬ 
sible that he made some suggestions for the de¬ 
signs of these structures, nevertheless it is im¬ 
probable that he could have found the time to take 
charge of *their erection or even of the actual work 
of planning them. 

It was in 1803 that Jefferson, then President, 
called Latrobe to Washington to become Surveyor 
of Public Buildings. By virtue of his position he 
also had charge of the construction work on the 
Navy Yard and, incidentally was planning a Po¬ 
tomac Canal. Among the work he found to do 
was the completion of the Capitol, which had had 
two or three architects working upon it. It was 
only natural that he should have been the victim 
of envy or jealousy, when he was forced by cir¬ 
cumstances to complete the work of others, and 
his position was doubly a difficult one, because he 


113 


had to design parts of the structure so that it 
should harmonize with what had been done. But 
in doing this he did not fail to make some im¬ 
provements, and he afterwards, when leaving the 
employ of the Government, alluded to the fact 
that he had built better and cheaper than those 
who had preceded him. 

He built the south wing of the Capitol to cor¬ 
respond with the north wing which had been de¬ 
signed by Doctor Thornton. In 1813 he resigned 
his position, which was becoming an unbearable 
one, owing to petty spites, and the active work of 
politicians, who seemed to think they should be 
consulted on architectural matters coming under 
Latrobe's direction, although they were entirely 
innocent of the subject. In his letter to the Sec¬ 
retary of the Navy, William Jones, he pointed out 
that he was solely interested in his professional 
work and his family, and had no talent for enter¬ 
taining members of Congress, or toadying to them. 

Although the War of 1812 was throwing the 
country into something of a turmoil, Latrobe, with 
the advice of Jefferson, became interested in a 
project for supplying New Orleans with a water 
system based upon the one he had established with 
more or less success in Philadelphia. He was un¬ 
able to proceed to the southern city on account 
of hositilities, but went to Pittsburgh, intending 


114 


to build his machinery there and send it south by 
boats. 

During this period Latrobe was in distress, 
mental and financial. He became connected with 
Robert Fulton, and was to represent the Ohio 
Steam Boat Company at Pittsburgh. The ven¬ 
ture proved unfortunate, and misunderstanding 
arose between Fulton and himself. Latrobe, for 
the first time in his life was despondent. It was 
while he was in this unhappy state of mind that 
the city of Washington was burned by the enemy. 
Mrs. Latrobe saw an opportunity for her husband 
to serve the Government again in reconstructing 
the ruined buildings, and she wrote to friends in 
Washington with the suggestion, and the reply 
came that Latrobe had been in their minds from 
the beginning. Once more he went to the capital. 

With the skill of an engineer he managed to * 
restore and rebuild the capitol, without seriously 
disturbing the walls that remained. Some of the 
work he then did would appeal sympathetically to 
the engineer of to-day, especially when it is con¬ 
sidered the time when Latrobe worked, and the 
poor equipment that was then at the disposal of 
the engineer and builder compared with the ma- 
‘chinery and the methods now in vogue. In addi¬ 
tion to completing the capitol virtually as we see 
it to-day, excepting the dome, for which he de¬ 
signed and erected one of flatter aspect, and (in 


115 


the mind of his son) a preferably harmonious one, 
Latrobe managed to have the work done in an ex¬ 
ceedingly economic manner. He braced up the 
walls with cord wood, and afterwards sold the 
wood for as much as he paid for it, thus saving on 
expensive scaffolding. 

Some idea of the work done by Latrobe in 
Washington was given in 1900 when the Centen¬ 
nial of the founding of the City of Washington 
was commemorated by an exhibition of plans, etc., 
in the Library of Congress. In that display there 
were shown of Latrobe’s plans for the Capitol as 
follows: 

Plan for the principal floor of one of the 
Houses of Congress. 

Plan for the principal story of the Capitol, 
dated 1806. 

Arcade and colonnade. 

President’s Chair, Senate Chamber. 

North Wing—Offices of the Judiciary. 

Cross Section of the House of Representatives. 

South Wing—Sketch of a Section in the Doric, 
Roman style for the Consideration of the Presi¬ 
dent, as to the propriety of a Doric Colonnade. 

South Wing—Radius of the Colonnade of the 
House of Representatives to the centre of the col¬ 
umn. 

Study for the West Front. 

There also were shown plans for a north wing 


116 


for the White House, and one for the East Front, 
with an additional plan for the principal floor of 
the South Front. 

Latrobe sent his eldest son, Henry S. B. La- 
trobe, to New Orleans, to attend to the comple¬ 
tion of the water works which he had planned, 
while he worked in Washington on Government 
projects. In 1817 he received word that his son 
had fallen victim to yellow fever, and the follow¬ 
ing year, finding that a Commission had been 
appointed which would seriously impede him in 
his work of supervising the buildings in the Cap¬ 
ital, he resigned and went to Baltimore where he 
opened an office as architect and engineer. While 
in Baltimore he designed the Cathedral and the 
Exchange, and in 1820, he went to New Orleans 
to supervise the work of setting up the engines in 
the water works. It was during this visit that he 
became ill with the dread fever and passed away. 

All the means he had were sunk in the enter¬ 
prise which was on the eve of completion. The 
work was turned over to other hands and his 
widow received nothing. 

It was the sad and frequent ending of a great 
career, but Latrobe had done something that will 
ever live—he brought to his adopted country an 
idea of architectural beauty which has been the 
inspiration of its innumerable architects. He was 
the father of the renaissance of the ancient classic 


117 


styles in building, and all who use them with the 
adaptations and evolutions which time has sug¬ 
gested are now more deeply indebted to Latrobe 
than probably they realize. Unfortunately no 
work of his in Philadelphia survives. 


VI 

ROBERT MILLS 



ROBERT MILLS 

Redrawn from small process print 























VI 

ROBERT MILLS 

L ATROBE must be regarded as fortunate be¬ 
cause he had two pupils who became famous, 
probably even more famed than himself. 
One of these, William Strickland, whose- career 
already has been sketched, is represented by more 
than a dozen fine examples of architecture in his 
native city, Philadelphia; and the other, Robert 
Mills, who achieved a national reputation by 
reason of the great monuments he designed. Mills 
did not reveal the same artistic feeling for archi¬ 
tecture, pure and simple, as did Strickland, who 
constructed some of the finest examples of adapt¬ 
ed Greek and Roman styles to be found anywhere, 
but he was successful so far as his fame is con¬ 
cerned by having designed three monuments 
which will continue to be personal and lasting tes¬ 
timonials to his architectural and engineering 
skill. 

Like Strickland, and his preceptor, Latrobe, 
Mills was an engineer, as well as architect, for a 
century ago there were no specialists, and some 
of the first work upon which he was engaged when 
he was sent to Latrobe to study, was on the pro¬ 
posed canal across the State of Delaware. 


While Mills was neither a native or long a citi¬ 
zen of Philadelphia, he did virtually begin his 
career here. From 1808 to 1817 he was a resi¬ 
dent, and during that period he constructed sev¬ 
eral interesting buildings, and a bridge which for 
a generation was regarded as one of the won¬ 
ders of the western world. But he was called to 
Washington and to work in his native Southland 
Philadelphia knew him no more, except as a na- 
tional figure through his work in Boston, Balti¬ 
more and Washington. It is a curious commen¬ 
tary upon his work here that today nothing of 
his design remains in Philadelphia, unless it be 
the house in which he lived at Eighth and Locust 
Streets, which betrays some of his characteristic 
work as an architect. It is not at all certain 
that he designed this house, but the suggestion 
is made that it contains work that may have been 
attributed to Mills. 

Mills* career is mainly associated with three 
cities—Charleston, South Carolina, Philadelphia, 
and Washington, in each of which cities he re¬ 
sided for long periods. In Charleston after his 
return to his native place, he resided for ten 
years, and the last quarter century of his life he 
spent in Washington. 

He should receive credit for having introduced 
what might be called fire-proof construction in 
this country. His ideas on this subject does not 


124 


appear to have attracted much attention in his 
day, and it is possible that his efforts in the direc¬ 
tion of building structures that would resist fire 
were not sufficiently appreciated. There was a 
startling proof of this in Philadelphia. Mills 
designed and planned the erection of a large build¬ 
ing at Third and Spruce Streets, known as Wash¬ 
ington Hall, which for a time was the centre of 
patriotic celebrations and the home of the Grand 
Lodge of Masons here. As it was to 
be used for assemblages, Mills very properly be¬ 
lieved that it should be fireproof, although the 
term was not then in use. He provided for this 
kind of construction, but his ideas were set aside. 
Some years later the building was burned to the 
ground. 

Mills was born in Charleston, August 12, 
1781, the son of William Mills, a Scotchman, who 
came from Dundee in 1770, and his wife who 
was Ann Taylor, and said to have been of an¬ 
cient Carolinian lineage, a descendant of Land¬ 
grave Thomas Smith, provisional governor of 
South Carolina in 1690. After receiving his edu¬ 
cation at Charleston College, under the charge of 
Bishop Smith and Doctor Gallagher, according 
to Dunlap, at the age of nineteen, or in 1800, he 
was sent to Washington where he was placed un¬ 
der the care of James Hoban, the architect of 
several of the public buildings there. 


125 


He is said to have spent two years in the office 
of Hoban, and then to have traveled over the east¬ 
ern part of the United States. On his return to 
Washington, he was introduced to President Jef¬ 
ferson, who took a lively, amateur interest in ar¬ 
chitecture, as he did in all of the arts and sciences. 
He was then erecting his great mansion Monti- 
cello and he urged young Mills to proceed in his 
studies, and in order to encourage him, he al¬ 
lowed him to make use of his books, among which 
was a copy of Palladio's Four Books of Archi¬ 
tecture. 

The President employed Mills to make the 
drawings for the building he was about to erect, 
and in doing this he found use for the Palladio, 
although Jefferson insisted upon looking after the 
details himself. When, shortly afterward Jeffer¬ 
son appointed Latrobe to succeed Hoban as archi¬ 
tect of the Capitol, he seems to have been instru¬ 
mental in placing his young protege in Latrobes 
office for the practical instruction in his art, and 
for the study of engineering. At that time La¬ 
trobe was in Philadelphia, and was engaged in 
laying out a canal across the State of Delaware 
to connect the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, 
and on this work young Mills was immediately 
employed. 

This period of Mills' career is somewhat hazy, 

but it is likely that he assisted Latrobe in his 

/ 


120 


UPPER FERRY BRIDGE, AT FAIRMOUNT 




architectural undertakings. It has been suggest¬ 
ed that he acted as a partner, or at least as an 
assistant, which may account for the belief in Phil¬ 
adelphia that Latrobe was the designer of the 
Gothic building of the Bank of Philadelphia which 
was erected at Fourth and Chestnut Streets in 
1809, a time when Latrobe was no longer a resi¬ 
dent of the city. It seems equally possible that 
Mills was the actual architect of the first build¬ 
ing of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine 
Arts, on Chestnut Street west of Tenth, which 
was erected about this time, and which, in the 
absence of any data, has been assigned to La¬ 
trobe. It should be explained that Dunlap, who 
certainly was writing from material supplied by 
Mills, states without hesitation that Mills was the 
architect of the Bank of Philadelphia. 

The Philadelphia City Directories do not men¬ 
tion Mills’ name before 1809. In that year he is 
described as architect, and as dwelling at 229 
Arch Street, or Mulberry Street. His name does 
not appear in the Directory^for 1810, and in that 
for 1811 he is set down as a resident of 45 San- 
som Street, a number which would correspond 
with the present 745. The Census Directory for 
the same year places his residence as 45 George 
Street, which would place it in another block, 
for at that time Sansom Street extended from 
Seventh to Ninth, while George Street ran from 


128 


Sixth to Seventh Streets, and from Ninth Street 
to Broad, being the thoroughfare now called San- 
som Street. There was no Directory published 
for 1812, but in that for 1813 we find Mills placed 
at 45 Sansom Street, so it may be assumed that 
that was the right address. 

In 1813 he is also placed at 114 South Eighth 
Street, or at the Northwest corner of that street 
and Locust Street, being described as Secretary 
of the Society of Artists of the United States. 
As this building now stands, it displays some of 
the characteristics of architectural treatment or 
ornament that recalls Mills' work on the Bank 
of Philadelphia. Although the Directories for the 
next few years rather indiscriminately placed 
Mills at 114 South Eighth Street and 114 South 
Tenth Street, these are undoubtedly the same 
place, inaccurately expressed. His name disap¬ 
pears from the Philadelphia directories after the 
year 1817. 

Not long after Mills came to Philadelphia 
the Society of Artists of the United States was 
formed in Philadelphia, and he was one of the 
founders, and the first Secretary. His master, 
Latrobe, was one of the Vice-Presidents, and on 
at least one occasion, the latter made an address 
to the Society in the Academy of the Fine Arts. 
The first exhibition of the society was held in 
1811, and in this Mills displayed his drawings 


129 


for the State Capitol at Harrisburg, and for the 
Baptist Church in Sansom Street. In the 1813 
exhibition he showed his plans for the Upper 
Ferry Bridge over the Schuylkill, at Philadelphia, 
on the site of the present Callowhill Street bridge. 
He also showed a design for a shot tower “Now 
building in the city of Richmond, Virginia, diam¬ 
eter, 30 feet; elevation to the top of the battle¬ 
ments, 160 feet.” 

This Upper Ferry Bridge was always called 
by Philadelphians the Wernwag Bridge,after Louis 
Wernwag, its builder, who even in guide books of 
the period was designated as its architect. It 
was a single arch bridge, having a span of 340 
feet, 4 inches, or 96 feet greater than any bridge 
then in existence. It has been explained that 
Wernwag was really the engineer, and Mills the 
architect of the superstructure, but it is more 
reasonable to assume that Mills was both archi¬ 
tect and engineer, and Wernwag, promoter and 
builder. The bridge was finished in 1813 and 
burned in 1838, for it was constructed of wood. 

The Baptist Church building, which was 
erected in Sansom, or George Street, between 
Eighth and Ninth Streets, was the largest audi¬ 
torium then in the United States, having a seat¬ 
ing capacity of 4000 persons. It was specially 
designed to obtain good acoustic qualities, and 
had a classic facade. It was designed on a plan 


130 



HOME OF FOBERT MILLS 
Northwest corner of Eighth and Locust 


Streets 


















then new to this country for church structures, 
but since then frequently followed where large 
seating capacity had to be provided. The build¬ 
ing proper was circular in form, and after the 
church congregation abandoned the edifice it was 
easily transformed into a building for the display 
of a cyclorama. 

Mills, for the time being, was the principal 
architect in Philadelphia. He was six years older 
than Strickland; had had some practical experi¬ 
ence while the latter was engaged as a landscape 
painter and aquatint engraver, and, indeed, it was 
only when Mills left the city that Strickland ap¬ 
pears to have been given opportunity to achieve 
the great success that was his as an architect and 
engineer. 

As the old State House, now Independence 
Hall, had been purchased by the City Government 
for its public offices, when the building had been 
vacated by the State Government, Mills was em¬ 
ployed to design and erect fireproof wing build¬ 
ings on either side of the old State House. These 
structures, in which were quartered the city of¬ 
fices and many of the Courts of Common Pleas, 
will be recalled by many older Philadelphians, 
for they were only removed about twenty-four 
years ago. 

These buildings were the most substantial 
buildings of their kind erected in this city 


132 





One of the wing buildings to Independence Hall 
erected by Mills 









up to the time of their construction. They had 
massive brick arches, thick walls of brick, and 
were the essence of solidity. This was a charac¬ 
teristic feature of all of Mills* work. He built 
for posterity, but unfortunately for his fame, 
little of his work remains to be seen here today, 
and no important structure. 

Mills’ idea of fireproof structure was taken 
up by those who give thought to such things, and 
a kind of demand for this, rather feeble, of course, 
resulted. He was engaged while in Philadelphia 
to design and erect a fireproof prison for Burling¬ 
ton County, New Jersey, although one might think 
that prisons generally were so well built that 
they at least were fire-resisting. 

It seems to have been that while Mills still 
resided in Philadelphia, that he undertook the 
erection of a monument to the memory of Wash¬ 
ington for the City of Baltimore. Another archi¬ 
tect, Maximilian Godefroy, had designed a Battle 
Monument for Baltimore, and while it seemed to 
please the taste of those who selected it, did not 
display any marked originality or superior ar¬ 
tistic judgment. A prize of $500 was offered for 
a suitable monument to Washington, and Mills 
set to work to design a shaft. This was the first 
public monument to be erected to the Father of 
his Country, and in it Mills set a style for sim¬ 
ilar monuments which lasted almost down to 


134 


the present time. Charles Mackay, the English 
poet, who traveled through the Eastern part of 
the United States in 1858, remarked this work, 
calling it a “noble Doric pillar of pure white mar¬ 
ble, one hundred and ninety-six feet in height ex¬ 
clusive of the basement, surmounted by a colossal 
statue of pater patriae. It stands in the centre 
of a square, on a terrace one hundred feet above 
the level of the Patapsco; and seen from the river, 
or from any part of the neighboring country, 
forms an imposing and picturesque object.’ 7 

One of the last works accomplished by Mills 
before he left Philadelphia was Washington Hall, 
already mentioned, which was designed for the 
Washington Benevolent Society. The account of 
the opening of the Hall in October, 1816, which 
was given in the Port Folio in the numbers for 
February and March, 1817, failed to make any 
mention of the architect. This omission of the 
architect's name in accounts of nearly all of the 
public buildings and monuments of the period 
leaves much useful information inaccessible, and 
makes many statements about them doubtful. 

Washington Hall was a large building capable 
of seating 4000 persons and of crowding into it 
from 5000 to 6000 persons, by using the galleries. 
It was probably the largest building of its kind 
in the United States in 1816, yet the description 
of the structure mentions that the roof of the 


135 


building was designed and executed by Mr. Jus¬ 
tus, the master builder, and continues to explain 
that he has constructed it so that its weight is 
borne by the outer walls, “so that no part of it 
bears upon the columns,” a statement that would 
not appear very novel in the present day, and one 
that does not indicate that an architect and engi¬ 
neer like Mills was ignorant of such ordinary 
practice. 

Washington Hall, judging from the picture 
which is left to us, does not impress one as having 
been a remarkable piece of architecture. Gener¬ 
ally speaking it followed the Greek Ionic, and 
while it had a showy facade, the acknowledgement 
to the classic type was not sufficiently emphasized. 

After the completion of Washington Hall, 
and the receipt of the contract for the Washing¬ 
ton Monument in Baltimore, Mills went to the lat¬ 
ter city to reside. Latrobe had been returned to 
Washington to rebuild the ruined public buildings 
there, and it is possible that he paved the way 
for Mills in Baltimore, as he had virtually left the. 
Maryland city for his new work. While in Balti¬ 
more Mills reproduced his great Baptist church 
which he had erected in Philadelphia for a Bap¬ 
tist congregation in the Southern city; he also 
designed St. John's Church in Baltimore. 

During his Baltimore residence, in 1819, at a 
time when property was at a low level of value, 


136 


owing to business depression, he published a 
work, outlining a plan for public improvements, 
by means of a Baltimore and Ohio canal, with a 
branch to the Susquehanna. This project was 
still being held under advisement when he received 
a call from his native state. He was made a mem¬ 
ber of the South Carolina Board of Public Works, 
and was given the office of Civil and Military En¬ 
gineer to the State. He also was called State En¬ 
gineer and Architect. 

The next ten years he spent in Charleston, 
and continued his interest in canal projects. He 
published various pamphlets on the subject. One 
of these, “Inland Navigation," was issued in 1820, 
just before he returned to Charleston; in 1826 
he published his “Statistics of South Carolina,” 
the most comprehensive work of its kind that had 
been issued for that state up to that time. In 
1825 he published a new “Atlas of South Caro¬ 
lina,” having been instrumental in securing the 
aid of the district surveyors, and making the work 
inclusive. 

In 1832 he published “The American Pharos, 
or, Lighthouse Guide,” a valuable treatise which 
is still regarded as an authority on the subject. 
That he was one of those who saw the coming of 
the automobile, is shown by the fact that in 1834 
he published another pamphlet, “A Substitute for 
Railroads and Canals.” In this he predicted the 


137 


development of “steam wagons." He further saw 
the effect this traffic would have on roads, and 
his essay included a study of the proper construc¬ 
tion of roadways to withstand such burdens as 
the coming traffic would lay upon them. While 
he was in Washington, he issued, in 1842, his 
“Guide to the National Executive Offices*’ in the 
capital. 

Mills did an abundance of public work, and 
erected several churches during his ten years’ 
stay in his native town. He was in Charleston 
when Lafayette paid his historic visit, and he as¬ 
sisted as architect in laying the cornerstone of 
the De Kalb monument erected in the city of 
Camden, S. C., from his designs. He made many 
suggestions for improved methods of transporta¬ 
tion in his native State, among them the building 
of a railroad from Hamburg to Columbia, which 
plan was followed out in part. 

It was while he was a resident of Charleston 
that Mills sent his design for the Bunker Hill 
Monument to the Committee in Boston. The cor¬ 
nerstone of the monument as laid by Lafayette in 
1825. Mills' design was for an obelisk, and also 
included some decoration around its base which 
was finally omitted, just as his design for the 
Washington Monument in Washington never was 
fully followed. Only Dunlap records Mills’ ef¬ 
forts in the Bunker Hill work, saying that he was 


138 


invited to send drawings for the proposed monu¬ 
ment. In Boston today nobody knows of Mills in 
connection with the monument. The guide books 
tell you that “the sculptor Greenough devised the 
monument and Solomon Willard was the architect 
who superintended its construction.” If Green¬ 
ough had any connection with the Bunker Hill 
Monument it must have been in later years while 
the work was proceeding toward completion, for 
in 1825 and 1826 he was studying in Europe. 
Willard might have been in charge of the work, 
but Mills was the author of the design. 

This fact seems to be shown in his insistence 
on a similar design for the Washington Monu¬ 
ment. Here, again, he designed an obelisk, which 
in this instance was to rise to a height of 600 
feet, but at its base he provided a large circular 
colonnade with pantheon in which to place stat¬ 
uary of the nation's illustrious dead. 

Work on the construction of the Washington 
Monument was started in 1848, under Mills’ direc¬ 
tion, but after the shaft had been carried to a 
height of 170 feet above the foundations the con¬ 
struction was halted because of lack of funds, the 
monument having been started by the Washing¬ 
ton National Monument Society, which had run 
its course. Mills never lived to see the obelisk 
completed, and it remained an incomplete mass 
from 1855 to 1878, when the Federal Government 


139 


took hold of it and pushed the work until it was 
finished. The monument is somewhat shorter than 
Mills intended, but it rises to a height of 555 feet 
5 y 8 inches, and is 597 feet 3 inches above mean 
low water in the Potomac. 

In 1830 Mills was called to Washington, hav¬ 
ing been appointed United States Architect, and 
Supervisor of Buildings of the United States. He 
designed the Treasury Building and that of the 
United States Patent Office, while holding that 
office. He was, in 1850, asked to submit designs 
for the north and south wings of the capitol, and 
for the central dome. He made drawings, but, 
having reached advanced age, he relinquished the 
task to a younger competitor, Thomas U. Wal¬ 
ters. Mills died in Washington, March 3, 1855, 
and, as Charles C. Wilson, one of his biographers, 
noted, lies in an unmarked grave in an obscure 
cemetery in the city he did so much to ornament. 


VII 

JOHN HAVILAND 










JOHN HAVILAND 
From a private plate 


VII 

JOHN HAVILAND 

4 LTHOUGH John Haviland was born, and edu- 
j \ cated for his profession of architect, in Eng- 
* land, his whole professional career belongs 
to Philadelphia. With the single exception of La- 
trobe, he was the first architect Philadelphia had 
had from England who came here as a full-fledged 
professional. 

With the possible exception of William Strick¬ 
land there remain today more examples of his 
work than of any other architect of his period, 
although already there are many signs that within 
the next few years few of his classic structures 
will remain, for the development of the city is 
already encroaching upon the neighborhoods 
where Haviland’s work is found. 

His most important works, of which all but 
two or three still survive, were: 

The First Presbyterian Church, at Seventh 
Street and Washington Square. 

St. Andrew’s Protestant Episcopal Church, 
Eighth Street, north of Spruce. (Now St. George’s 
Greek Orthodox Church.) 

Eastern State Penitentiary, Corinthian and 
Fairmount Avenues. 


Franklin Institute, Seventh Street, south of 
Market. 

Philadelphia Arcade, formerly on Chestnut 
Street between Sixth and Seventh Streets. 

Walnut Street Theatre, Ninth and Walnut 
Streets. Only the walls of this structure now 
remain, as the interior of the building was en¬ 
tirely rebuilt and remodeled in 1920. 

Colonnade Row, Chestnut Street west from 
Fifteenth Street, south side. This passed away 
by degrees, and the name survived until recently 
in the Colonnade Hotel which stood at the south¬ 
west corner of those streets. 

Western State Penitentiary at Pittsburgh, 
which structure was reconstructed by Haviland, 
after the success of his design for the Eastern 
Penitentiary. 

United States Naval Hospital, at Norfolk, 
Virginia. 

Pennsylvania State Lunatic Asylum, at Har¬ 
risburg. 

Berks County Prison, at Reading. 

State Penitentiary, Rhode Island. 

State Penitentiary, Missouri. 

Court House, Pittsburgh. 

State Penitentiary, Trenton, New Jersey. 

Essex County (N. J.) Prison. 

Dauphin County Prison. 

Lancaster County Prison. 


146 


Halls of Justice, New York City. 

It will be noted from the above list that Havi- 
land specialized in prison architecture. It is in¬ 
teresting to mention that he was the first architect 
who did give serious study to penology, and in a 
measure he may be said to be the father of the 
American prison system. 

John Haviland was the son of James Havi- 
land, of Gundenham Manor, Somersetshire, Eng¬ 
land, where he was born December 15, 1792. His 
mother was Ann, daughter of the Rev. Benjamin 
Cobley of Ide in the county of Devon, and Rector 
of Dodbrook. His education was received in his 
native county. Displaying inclinations toward 
architecture he was sent to London after complet¬ 
ing his academic course, to study with James 
Elmes. 

Elmes was something more than an architect, 
although he was a deep student in his profession, 
having edited a new edition of Wren’s “Parentalia 
or Memoirs of the Family of Wren,” in 1823. 
Young Haviland had scarcely completed his pre¬ 
liminary studies with the master when he believed 
superior inducements were offered him in Russia. 

A sister of his mother had married Count 
Morduinoff, at that time Minister of Marine under 
the Emperor Alexander I, and as the Count 
showed a disposition to assist the fortunes of his 
young relative, Haviland hoped, under his in- 


147 


fluence, to obtain advancement in the Russian serv¬ 
ice. He expected to obtain an appointment in the 
Corps of Engineers, so he promptly accepted the 
invitation to visit St. Petersburg. 

He did not find just what he expected in Rus¬ 
sia, but while he was considering what he would 
do, he received word from the United States of the 
promising state of architecture in that country. 
From whom this information was received, or 
what it was may only be conjectured. The idea 
may be advanced that the recent emigration of 
George Bridport, an artist and architect, and the 
announcement that a building was to be erected 
for the Bank of the United States in some way 
influenced Haviland, because in 1816, Hugh Brid¬ 
port, a competent portrait painter, a brother of 
George, both of whom were known to Haviland, 
came to Philadelphia, where his brother had es¬ 
tablished himself, and in September of that year, 
possibly by the same vessel, Haviland came to 
Philadelphia. 

Hugh Bridport, after he opened a studio here 
in 1817 described himself as an architect, but it 
is evident that he did little in that field. His 
brother George opened a shop at the northwest 
corner of Seventh and Chestnut Streets the same 
year, as a “decorative architect and furnisher.” 
In the same building his brother Hugh had his 
studio, and evidently in connection with Haviland 


148 




'P*. 


JNnB 


>' -n. |® ;::*t&Ifr^ : 

jflfl i SI j 

*$g J7 * 4fc ^>^> •' >1®^# 



■ : 7 ' 


Jpt £ 
r* ; ' 

■ 

W * !<*» nX %8sH 



1 « -i -c- >^Illljf 1 ,K A 

. , ‘* PR tfeGH 

■£ ■ '■ : : , JL 

^>-. ;<Sv.v . &<fc J ^’''’ • -TwJJ 

^ ’ v - if **, *f §? i i 

Iff *2P #* J V Jlllifc H 

4 * r *&f Mf- <M t<£?- : p"* 

t . i i riMffn i|.«|i ^ f ^^ffij 


eastern penitentiary 








conducted an academy of drawing on the opposite 
corner, for in the Directory for 1818 we find the 
firm of Haviland & Bridport, “architectural ana 
miscellaneous drawing academy, Southwest corner 
of Chestnut and Seventh Streets.” 

The first public appearance of Haviland as 
an architect seems to have been at the annual 
exhibition at the Academy of the Fine Arts in 
the spring of 1817. In the catalogue of that dis¬ 
play is noted two exhibits by Haviland. One of 
these was a “Ground Plan of a National Bank,” 
and the other, “A Design of a National Bank.” In 
the same show Strickland exhibited “A Proposed 
Design for a National Bank.” 

These entries indicate that Strickland and 
Haviland were in competition for the office of 
architect of the Bank of the United States. Strick¬ 
land’s design was the accepted one. 

For the next few years Haviland does not 
appear to have had any important public work 
to do, for no structure designed by him during 
this period is known. Then, he received the com¬ 
mission to erect a new edifice for the First Pres¬ 
byterian Church, and this structure which sur¬ 
vives to the present day at Seventh Street and 
Washington Square, was the first work of the 
architect in Philadelphia to receive recognition. 
The design for it was one of the exhibits at the 
Annual Exhibition of the Academy of the Fine 


150 


Arts in 1821. At the same time it was announced 
in the catalogue that the drawing was being en¬ 
graved and plates would be for sale by subscrip¬ 
tion, which is an indication that the view was 
regarded as a worthy piece of art. The engraver 
was James Thackera. 

The success of Haviland's first essay in church 
architecture immediately improved his prospects. 
In designing the First Presbyterian Church he 
had followed with only slight variation, Latrobe’s 
Bank of Pennsylvania. The descriptions of the 
edifice speak of it as having had for its model the 
temple on the Illyssus, at Athens. The same 
model served Latrobe for his bank building, but 
the latter improved upon his model by using six 
instead of four columns on the portico, and Havi- 
land rather wisely followed his example. 

It is not generally known that the columns 
and the whole portico of this church in fact, are 
constructed of wood. Red and white cedar were 
used. The whole was painted and sanded, and 
after a century's exposure to the elements the 
facade is still in good condition. 

With the erection of the First Presbyterian 
Church Haviland's fortunes enjoyed a change for 
the better, and for the remainder of his life he 
was almost constantly employed upon public struc¬ 
tures, and latterly upon some of the mansions 
which still surround Rittenhouse Square. 


151 


The first contract he received after the Pres- 
byterian Church was completed was for St. An¬ 
drew's Episcopal Church, on Eighth Street, north 
of Spruce, now known as St. George’s Greek Or¬ 
thodox Church. Once more the same model served 
for the fagade, but Haviland was enabled to keep 
it nearer the original Temple by having the ap¬ 
proach of steps. This factor of the design was 
denied him in his former work, by reason of the 
deficiency of necessary room, and the necessity 
of having the main auditorium elevated to a 
greater height than was required in St. Andrew’s. 
St. Andrew's was begun in 1822 and completed 
the following year. It has many fine lines, but is 
situated in a comparatively narrow street, and 
consequently never could be seen to advantage. 

Not long after Haviland came to Philadelphia 
serious attention was being given to the improve¬ 
ment of our prisons, and the young architect soon 
began to take a deep interest in the study. He 
was not entirely igorant of the subject, for he had 
heard from Count Morduinoff, his aunt’s husband, 
something about the philanthropist Howard, with 
whom Admiral Morduinoff was acquainted, and 
for whom he felt a warm sympathy. When How¬ 
ard was stricken with the infection at Cherson, 
in 1789, Morduinoff was one of the faithful ones 
who attended to his wants in this last illness. 
The recital of the work of the philanthropist evi- 


152 


FRANKLIN INSTITUTE 

















dently made a lasting impression upon Haviland, 
and he was at hand here to take interest in what 
was then being done to improve prison conditions 
in Pennsylvania. 

In reciting the incident, the Journal of Prison 
Discipline, in its obituary sketch of Haviland, re¬ 
marked : “The memory of this honorable friend¬ 
ship (between Howard and Count MorduinofT) 
was reverently cherished by the survivor, who 
loved to dwell upon the discoveries and designs of 
the great Englishman; and we cannot doubt that 
the young Haviland became an auditor of precious 
reminiscences. It is certain that the friend who 
shared the last sympathetic throb of the heart of 
Howard was he whose hand was extended to guide 
towards our country the architect under whose 
directing skill was to arise the most complete em-' 
bodiment which the world has seen of Howard's 
reform.” 

There appear to be indications in the above 
paragraph that, in one way or another, Haviland 
had some influence in urging the prison reformers 
here to do something toward improving the con¬ 
dition of prisoners. At any rate, the Legislature 
in 1818 passed a law authorizing the construction 
of a modern prison or penitentiary .in Pittsburgh. 
Haviland was among the architects who submitted 
plans for this new structure, but his design was 
not chosen, but, when in 1821 the project for the 


154 


Eastern Penitentiary to be erected in Philadelphia 
was authorized, Haviland was successful with 
plans, which were destined to be revolutionary in 
prison architecture, and to have caused the atten¬ 
tion of penologists in all parts of Europe to be 
directed to the new system of solitary confinement 
provided for in Haviland's design. 

This called for a system which was at once 
efficient and economical. He planned corridors 
radiating from a central observation point, like 
spokes from a hub. He arranged that each cell 
should have a yard, in which prisoners might ex¬ 
ercise, but where all the prisoners in the prison 
might be overlooked by a single sentinel or guard. 
Nothing just like it ever had been built before. 
The architecture of the exterior also was of some¬ 
what novel construction, resembling an ancient 
castle of the Norman period in England. A re¬ 
cent artist of international reputation, who made 
a drawing of the Penitentiary, spoke of the build¬ 
ing as one of the most artistic in the city. The 
average Philadelphian probably has not looked at 
the great pile in this light, but a little study of 
the structure will give the spectator some idea 
of what the artist had in mind when he made the 
remark. 

The Eastern Penitentiary was started in 1823, 
and completed in 1829, but during this period 
Haviland was a very busy man, for he had just 


155 


completed St. Andrew’s Church; was designing 
and building the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, at 
Broad and Pine Streets; the building for the 
Franklin Institute on Seventh Street south of 
Market; and erecting the Arcade, another piece ot 
novel construction, on Chestnut Street between 
Sixth and Seventh Streets. 

But in this period he also found time to issue 
“The Builders’ Assistant: Containing the five Or¬ 
ders of Architecture. Selected from the best speci¬ 
mens of the Greek and Roman, with figures, dimen¬ 
sions of heights, projection and profile.*' This 
work on which it is said he had the assistance of 
Bridport, was published in three volumes. He 
also is credited with having published in 1818, in 
connection with Bridport, another “Builders’ As¬ 
sistant.*’ In 1832 he published an improved edi¬ 
tion of Owen Biddle's “Young Carpenters’ Assis¬ 
tant. Being a complete system of architecture, 
for carpenters, joiners and workmen in general.” 

In all of the buildings Haviland designed in 
this period, he is revealed as a pioneer. Whatever 
deficiencies his work displays it must not be for¬ 
gotten that he had little in the way of prototypes 
to guide his course. The Deaf and Dumb Asylum, 
indeed, was erected in 1824-25 after schools of 
similar character had been opened in Hartford, 
Connecticut, and in New York City. But it should 
be explained that neither of these boasted of a 

156 


/ 



ST. ANDREWS P. E. CHURCH 
Haviland’s remains were interred in its crypt 










































* 


structure such as was to be provided in this city, 
partly through aid of the State of Pennsylvania. 
Virtually the architect was on virgin soil when he 
started. 

The reign of the Classic, which followed the 
period of Colonial as an architectural style here, 
was still in full course, and the new Asylum was 
designed by Haviland in keeping with the spirit 
of the times. The fagade, which has been only 
slightly changed, still displays the temple-like en¬ 
trance, with its entablature, which was affected 
by the architects in Philadelphia at the time. But 
the classic stopped there. The remainder of the 
design is more or less commonplace. 

Haviland arrived here in the times of new 
things, and fortunately for himself was equal to 
the work he found here to do. In 1824 the Frank¬ 
lin Institute was organized, and the following year 
the new institution decided it needed a a perma¬ 
nent home. Haviland was selected to draw the 
plans, and the building still standing on Seventh 
Street, after almost a hundred years, is the re¬ 
sult. Here he had to adapt the classic to a com¬ 
paratively short front, in a more or less narrow 
street. He translated the round columns of the 
Grecian temples to flat columns, but he had marble 
for his material, and the result at the time was a 
most pleasing and novel treatment. 

This building was completed in 1826 and be- 


158 


fore it was finished Haviland was busy with an¬ 
other entirely new project. This was the Phila¬ 
delphia Arcade. Nothing like it had been seen in 
America. It was the first office building in Phila¬ 
delphia, a fact not generally realized, because at 
the same time it was the first office building in the 
United States. The front was open to the third 
story with four large arches, and passageways ex¬ 
tended the whole length of the building from 
Chestnut Street to Carpenter, now Ranstead 
Street. Large skylights illuminated these passages, 
which were lined on first and second stories by 
offices. The third floor was arranged for the 
Museum of Charles Willson Peale. The front was 
of Pennsylvania marble, and the structure was 
for a generation one of the sights proudly dis¬ 
played to visitors to the city. Architecturally 
the style was different from anything previously 
erected here, and merely was a memory of the 
classic. 

The Arcade was finished in 1827 and the new 
improvement seemed to suggest to Philadelphia 
enterprise the advisability of altering the Walnut 
Street Theatre, which was a popular place of 
amusement but a not particularly beautiful piece 
of architecture. Haviland was called in to make 
the alterations, and when he had finished the 
theatre had been entirely transformed both within 
and without, until it virtually was a new struc- 


159 


ture. In this condition it remained with little 

lr 

change until 1920-21, when it was entirely re¬ 
modeled, with nothing of Haviland's work remain¬ 
ing. 

In 1830 Haviland was employed by the 
Blights, then great foreign merchants here, to 
erect a row of fine dwellings on the south side 
of Chestnut Street from Fifteenth Street west¬ 
ward. The row reached almost to Sixteenth Street, 
and was distinctive in architecture by reason of 
the colonnaded entrances to each house. The row, 
following the example of the time, was named 
Colonnade Row. The houses were four stories 
each in height, and a few of them remained until 
about fifty years ago. The Colonnade Hotel re¬ 
ceived its name from the row, four units of which 
were absorbed by that structure when it was built. 

Haviland achieved an enviable reputation by 
his work on the Eastern Penitentiary. He was 
in demand in many parts of the country during 
the next ten or fifteen years to construct prisons 
on lines designed by himself, and especially was 
looked upon as an expert by penologists in all, 
parts of Pennsylvania. As has been mentioned, 
he was called upon to devise prisons for several 
counties in Pennsylvania, for the State Peniten¬ 
tiary in New Jersey, he also was employed as 
architect for the Essex County, N. J., prison; the 
Halls of Justice, in New York City, and to design 


160 


the penitentiaries of Rhode Island, and Missouri. 

It must have given him some satisfaction to 
have been called in to reconstruct the Western 
Penitentiary in Pittsburgh. It will be recalled 
that he had submitted a design in competition for 
that institution, but it was rejected, and that of 
another used to construct the building. Now that 
his work on the Eastern Pententiary had proved 
so satisfactory that the penologists of Europe were 
sent here to inspect it, he was asked to rebuild 
the Penitentiary at Pittsburgh. This was in 1834, 

These works kept him away from Philadel¬ 
phia a great deal for years. By feeling, training, 
and study he had become the best informed archi¬ 
tect in this country in the knowledge of the re¬ 
quirements of public institutions, especially those 
erected for the correction of criminals. He also 
had some knowledge of the requirements of hos¬ 
pitals, but his design for the first building for the 
Pennsylvania Hospital's Department for Insane 
at Forty-ninth and Market Streets, was rejected 
for one by another Englishman, Isaac Holden, who 
was more of a carpenter and builder than he was 
an architect. However, in this he was in good 
company, for the plan of Strickland also was re¬ 
jected. 

So far as can be learned, this work of Holden, 
begun in 1836 and completed in 1841, is the only 
example of his architecture in this country. Hol- 


161 


den returned to England shortly after the work 
was finished, and probably once again took up 
the hammer and saw. There is no reason given 
in the history of the Pennsylvania Hospital for 
selecting this design in preference to those of two 
of the foremost architects then in the United 
States. 

In 1846 Haviland constructed the Berks 
County Prison, at Reading, and in 1851 built the 
State Lunatic Asylum at Harrisburg. This ap¬ 
pears to have been his last important work. He 
also designed many of the fine residences which 
surround Rittenhouse Square, in one of which he 
himself is said to have lived. There are no means 
of identifying these structures now. 

Some time after his arrival in this country 
he married a sister of General von Sonntag, who 
was in the Russian Service, and with whom Havi¬ 
land became acquainted during his stay in Russia. 
Haviland died in Philadelphia March 28th, 1852, 
and his remains were interred in a crypt in St. 
Andrews 1 Episcopal Church, an edifice which he 
had designed. 

A son of Haviland, Edward Haviland, who. 
was born in Philadelphia October 15th, 1824, stu¬ 
died law, and was admitted to the bar May 6,1848. 
Another son, John von Sonntag Haviland, also 
was admitted to practice law here in 1846. He 
went to England where he became York Herald, 


162 


in London, and was entitled to place F. S. A. after 
his name. Edward Haviland soon forsook the law 
for architecture, taking up his father’s work after 
the latter's death. Among the works which he de¬ 
signed was the Tombs in New York City. Like 
his father, he specialized in institutional work, 
and there are numerous prisons and asylums de¬ 
signed by him in Pennsylvania. He died in 1872. 
He is said to have been a man of striking physique, 
standing six feet six inches in height. 




VIII 

GRAFF, ELLET, 
TRAUTW1NE & KNEASS 






111111 


FREDERICK GRAFF 















































VIII 

GRAFF, ELLET, 
TRAUTWINE & KNEASS 

S TRICT chronological order seems to be im¬ 
practicable in writing of our early engineers 
and architects, because the opening of the 
Nineteenth century developed specialists in these 
professions, while there still remained men who 
were ornaments to both. In this chapter we shall 
deal principally with men whose engineering work 
is better recalled than what they did for archi¬ 
tecture; indeed, the architectural talents of Colo¬ 
nel Charles Ellet, Jr., are only to be found in his 
bridges; Frederick Graff’s in his water works, 
and John C. Trautwine and Samuel H. Kneass 
were primarily engineers, and while the former 
did design several buildings, and had submitted 
a design for the Merchants’ Exchange Building 
which was not accepted, he will be remembered 
by those who never heard of his architectural 
essays. 

Frederick Graff was born in Philadelphia Au¬ 
gust 27th, 1775, and while still a lad was appren¬ 
ticed to John Rugan and Mark Rodes, who were 
very successful carpenters and builders. He corn- 


169 


pleted his time with this firm, and worked as a 
journeyman carpenter until he was twenty-two, 
when he severely cut one of his knees with a 
hatchet while engaged in his trade. 

This accident changed the whole course of 
his life. For a long time it was feared he could 
not live, and it was almost decided to amputate 
the limb. However, the operation was not re¬ 
sorted to, but Gralf was lamed for life. As he 
was now compelled to go about on crutches it was 
out of the question for him to think of continuing 
his trade. He did not seem to have any idea what 
he should do, but at this juncture of his career he 
met Benjamin H. Latrobe, who was erecting the 
Bank of Pennsylvania. 

Discovering Graff had ability to draw plans, 
and was a practical builder, Latrobe engaged him 
to make the working drawings of his new bank 
structure; subsequently he was made clerk and 
finally superintendent of construction of the new 
building. In this capacity Graff continued until 
the work was completed. 

Not long after this, Latrobe was attacking an¬ 
other problem—a system of water supply for 
Philadelphia—and, as capable engineers and prac¬ 
tical builders not otherwise engaged were not 
numerous, Latrobe sought Graff to assist him in 
the new undertaking. Graff was appointed drafts- 


170 


t 


man and assistant engineer in erecting the water 
works in 1799. 

To a certain extent Graff may be said to have 
been a pupil of the great engineer, for it is not 
probable that he had been as deeply trained in 
that profession as Latrobe. The latter, as was 
usual with him, was ready and willing to assist 
any of his pupils or assistants, and when Latrobe 
was asked to design and build a bank building 
for the Branch Bank of Deposit, at Norfolk, Vir¬ 
ginia, he suggested that Graff be selected, as the 
work upon the Philadelphia water system was 
not yet completed to the engineer's satisfaction. 

Graff went to Virginia, designed and built the 
bank building, and then for a time was in South 
Carolina acting as engineer of the Santee Canal. 
Having spent about three years in the South, Graff 
returned to his native city, and was at once en¬ 
gaged as assistant engineer at the Centre Square 
Water Works. In 1805 he was elected superin¬ 
tendent and engineer of those works, and from 
that time until his death his work was closely con¬ 
nected with the water supply of Philadelphia. The 
experience thus gained caused him to be regarded 
at the time of his death as a leading figure among 
water engineers in this country. 

The work required of Mr. Graff at the Centre 
Square works was largely confined to that depart- 


171 


ment usually assigned to mechanical engineers. 
He had to keep in condition the largest steam en¬ 
gine then in America, and this wonderful but woe¬ 
fully deficient piece of machinery was supplied 
with steam made in a wooden boiler. That the 
machinery did not give the efficiency required for 
steam pumps in the present day, goes without 
saying, but the breakdowns were so frequent, and 
becoming so dangerous that Graff set about im¬ 
proving the condition of the steam generating 
plant. There was a boiler for another en¬ 
gine which was composed of cast iron and Graff 
improved its efficiency and life by adding to it a 
bottom of wrought iron. Strange to relate, the 
wooden boiler continued in use until the water 
works were finally removed from City Hall Square 
to Fairmount, a period of about a quarter cen¬ 
tury. 

Iron castings in those days were not up to 
the mark. Graff found that both engines and 
boiler had to be lined or reinforced with sheet 
copper in order to make them tight enough to 
answer the purpose for which they were intended. 
It is said that the whole plant was so defective 
that it never was run for more than a week at a 
time without being repaired. The reservoirs 
which were filled with water by this defective 
machinery, consisted of large wooden tubs in the 


172 


upper story of the Centre Square engine house, 
and together these held but a half hour’s supply 
of water. It was the custom for Mr. Graff to 
spend one night every week in the water works 
repairing the engines and plant generally. When 
it is recollected that as lately as 1822, the City of 
Philadelphia never had more than half an hour’s 
water supply, and that it was always in imminent 
danger of having no supply at all, we must feel 
some sense of gratitude for having been born in 
a later age. 

Distribution of this water supply was through 
wooden pipes, or mains, and these like the rest 
of the plant were constantly failing in their work, 
necessitating frequent repairs and renewals. The 
logs from which these conduits were made were 
purchased in Port Richmond, just above Kensing¬ 
ton, in Philadelphia, and out to this then distant 
place Graff would walk before daylight in the 
morning in order to select his logs, measure and 
survey them. 

In those days being a water engineer in Phila¬ 
delphia was no sinecure. His salary was less than 
$2,000 a year, indeed, it had only reached that 
amount in 1836, long after the Fairmount works 
had been in operation. As an indication of the 
municipal attitude on salaries in those days, it 
may be mentioned that while Graff was in charge 


173 


of the Centre Square works, he also made exami¬ 
nations, and designed an improved water works 
at Fairmount, and Councils failed to allow him 
any increase of salary. So he resigned, and Coun¬ 
cils immediately accepted his resignation, and at 
once grandly advertised in New York, Baltimore 
and other cities for an engineer to take his place. 
It is possible that they stated the salary to be 
paid. However, no one answered the grand offer, 
and the city was glad to engage Graff again at an 
advance of salary. As it now only amounted to 
$2,000 a year, it will be admitted that he was not 
being overpaid. 

The Centre Square Water Works had not been 
in operation more than ten years before it became 
recognized that they were inadequate for the work 
they were expected to perform, and the Watering 
Committee of Councils directed that an examina¬ 
tion be made to learn if another method of supply¬ 
ing the city could not be devised. Mr. Graff and 
Mr. J. Davis, the former superintendent of the 
water works, were appointed to examine and re¬ 
port. This they did in 1811, agreeing on the aban¬ 
donment of the Centre Square works and the erec¬ 
tion of reservoirs on Fairmount hill. 

The report was accepted and the property rec¬ 
ommended purchased. Work upon the new works 
was begun in 1812. Graff not only designed the 

174 


I 


buildings, and the pumps which were to raise the 
water from the Schuylkill to the new reservoirs, 
but he designed the iron pipes, or conduits, which 
were to distribute the supply into the city’s build¬ 
ings. These iron pipes were the largest that ever 
had been cast in this country, and in themselves 
represented an advance in water engineering. 

When the Fairmount works were started 
steam engines, still of poor character regarding 
their performance, furnished the power, but Graff 
believed that water wheels would do the work at 
least as efficiently and at less expense. He de¬ 
signed the wheels and the pumps, and also the 
plans for a dam across the river above Fairmount 
to form a basin to supply the new wheels. In a 
measure this was the foremost engineering work 
that had been accomplished in this country up to 
that time, and added greatly to Graff’s reputa¬ 
tion. 

In 1833, a controversy having arisen between 
the city and the Schuylkill Navigation Company, 
which still regarded its rights in the river water 
as good, one cold, inclement night Graff at the 
head of a party of men directed to close the canal 
by spiking the lock gates, caught a cold which 
kept him indoors for nine months. He never re¬ 
covered from this exposure and died, more or less 
as a result of it, in 1847, at the age of seventy-two. 


175 


The fact that Colonel Charles Ellet, Jr., lived 
in Philadelphia for about seven years of his life, 
and that during that time he constructed for it 
the first wire suspension bridge that ever had 
been erected in this country, must be the excuse 
for including his name in this series. 

He was the son of a well-to-do farmer at 
Penn’s Manor, Bucks County, near Bristol, and 
it is said that his paternal parent intended him 
to follow his own pursuit—farming. However, 
young Ellet, who was born on his father’s farm 
in 1810, was sent to Philadelphia, as a lad, to 
attend a day school, and it is probable that the 
persons he met with there caused him to enter¬ 
tain other ideas from those of his family. Cer¬ 
tainly, at the age of seventeen, he left home to 
serve for a few months as rodman for Canvass 
White, on a survey of the north branch of the 
Susquehanna. On this expedition he received his 
first training for his chosen profession. 

That he managed to drink in a great deal of 
knowledge of engineering may be imagined from 
the fact that the following year he was appointed 
by Judge Wright, then Chief Engineer of the 
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, as volunteer assis¬ 
tant. As a matter of course he was only learn¬ 
ing, and he had no fixed position or any salary 
while serving with Wright. He was detailed to 


176 



CHARLES ELLET, Jr 



















attend to the office work, to draw the maps and 
make the computations. He attended to his du¬ 
ties so admirably that he received the appoint¬ 
ment of Assistant Engineer of the Fifth Resi¬ 
dency, under the supposition that he was twenty- 
one. As a matter of fact he needed two years 
to attain that age. 

Ellet wasted no time, but devoted every min¬ 
ute to study, for he had determined to become an 
engineer. He also was economical, and saved 
from his slight salary in two years enough money 
to permit him to spend a winter in Paris, where 
he registered as a student in the Ecole Poly¬ 
technique. He had attained an excellent knowl¬ 
edge of the French language, and this stood him 
in good stead. He met with many notables in 
France, among them Lafayette, who advised him 
of the Revolution of 1830, a week before it burst 
into flame. 

Ellet returned to his native land, and imme¬ 
diately became connected with the New York and 
Erie Railroad, and later with the James River 
and Kanawha Canal Company, subsequently act¬ 
ing as chief engineer of the latter project. With 
this company he remained until 1839 when he 
returned to Philadelphia where his father was 
residing. His coming was fortunate for him, for 
about that time the bridge across the Schuylkill 


178 


at Fairmount was burned, and Ellet had an op¬ 
portunity to introduce the subject of a suspension 
bridge which project had long occupied his mind. 

His first work in Philadelphia, however, was 
the publication of a book, “An Essay on the Laws 
of Trade,” which reviewed the works of internal 
improvement in the United States. He also pub¬ 
lished other works dealing with trade, and was 
agitating his ideas of suspension bridges. He 
was called upon to erect a suspension bridge 
across the Schuylkill to replace the Wernwag 
structure which had been destroyed, and this was 
completed in 1842, attracting attention from en¬ 
gineers all over the country. 

In 1846 he was elected president of the 
Schuylkill Navigation Company, in which he was 
a heavy stockholder, and held this position for 
some years. He increased the width of the canal 
and placed it in modern condition for the times, 
at the same time increasing the number of its 
boats which was followed by larger business. 
In 1845 he outlined the plan for a railway sus¬ 
pension bridge across the Niagara River below 
the Falls, and in 1847 received a contract from 
the American and Canadian Niagara Bridge Com¬ 
panies to erect such a structure. Although he 
actually began work on the bridge and was the 
first man to cross above the Whirlpool rapids in 


179 


\ 


a basket on the original working cables, a dis¬ 
agreement arose between him and the corpora¬ 
tions regarding the tolls, and he relinquished his 
contract. 

Ellet subsequently was connected with many 
engineering enterprises in many parts of the 
country, and at the outbreak of the Civil War 
he was active in securing the attention of the 
Federal Government to his proposed steam rams, 
for operation in the rivers and harbors against 
the Confederate forces. He finally was allowed 
to construct two rams, being given six weeks to 
attach them to old steamboats on the Mississippi. 
At the battle of Memphis he took command him¬ 
self, and went ahead with his rams, sinking two 
of the Confederate river boats, but receiving a 
wound which soon afterward proved fatal. Colo¬ 
nel Ellet died of wounds on June 21, 1862, having 
left an enviable record both as an engineer and 
as a patriot. 

Both of the remaining two engineers to be 
treated of in this chapter—Samuel H. Kneass and 
John C. Trautwine, were pupils of William Strick¬ 
land, and it is to the credit of the great architect 
and engineer that every one of his students made 
a name for himself in his profession. 

Kneass, like Ellet, was primarily an engineer, 
and only occasionally an architect in the sense of 


180 


designing buildings. For many years he was 
mainly interested in the development of railways 
and canals, being especially fitted for the work 
by reason of his training under Strickland. 

Samuel Honeyman Kneass was born in Phila¬ 
delphia in 1806, and therefore was four years 
older than John C. Trautwine, who was born in 
the same city in 1810. It was in 1821 that Kneass 
entered the office of Strickland, and was engaged 
on several of the buildings that that architect was 
engaged upon, among them the Bank of the 
United States, which was not completed until 
1824. At the time Lafayette was entertained in 
Philadelphia, Kneass designed the triumphal 
arch, which was decorated by Sully, and which 
structure was erected in front of Independence 
Hall. His original drawing still hangs in one of 
the buildings of the Independence Hall group. 

Kneass was sent to England in 1825, to ac¬ 
company Strickland, by the Society for Promot¬ 
ing Internal Improvements, for the purpose of 
studying and reporting upon the public works of 
that country, and all of the drawings that illus¬ 
trate Strickland’s volume of report are said to 
have been made by Kneass. On his return Kneass 
was attached to the staff of Strickland for the 
construction of the Susquehanna Division of the 
Pennsylvania canal system. This was in 1825, 


181 


and later he was assigned to the Delaware Divi¬ 
sion. 

In 1829 he left the state’s service to become 

chief engineer of the Mine Hill and Schuylkill 

Haven Railroad, only to leave that service and 

return to construct the first of the chain of west- 

* 

ern railroads in Pennsylvania in 1831—the Lex¬ 
ington and Frankfort Railroad, and in 1832 he 
took the position of chief engineer of the Phila¬ 
delphia and Trenton Railroad. 

Upon the completion of this road he went to 
Louisiana and began work on the West Feliciana 
Railroad in that state, but failing health com¬ 
pelled him to return to his native state, and com¬ 
ing north again he successively was connected 
with the Philadelphia and Wilmington Railroad, 
and the Delaware and Schuylkill Canal, which 
latter work never reached completion,, and in 
1840 made another visit to England where he 
examined the improvements that had been made 
in machinery and construction since his last visit. 

After organizing surveys for the southern 
part of his native city, Philadelphia, Kneass, in 
1845 was appointed United States Consul at 
Carthegena, where he also was contractor for 
the construction of a canal connecting that city 
with the river Magdalena. In 1846 he was once 
more in Pennsylvania taking charge of canal 


182 



JOHN C. TRAUTWINE 
Author of “The Engineer’s Bible” 









works in Dauphin County, only to leave two years 
later to take a position on the Northern New York 
Railroad. In 1849 he was appointed Chief Sur¬ 
veyor of Philadelphia. He held this position until 
1853. Among his works during his occupancy 
was the erection of a new bridge across the 
Schuylkill at Market Street. 

After resigning his position he again was 
connected with various railroad projects in Penn¬ 
sylvania, being Chief Engineer of the Northwests 
ern Railroad of Pennsylvania at the time of his 
death, which occurred in 1858. 

Of all the Philadelphia engineers of this pe¬ 
riod, John C. Trautwine is best known and even 
something of a present-day personality, although 
he has been dead for almost forty years. The 
reason for this seeming paradox is to be found in 
his Civil Engineer’s Pocket Book, which he first 
issued in 1871, although the volume bears the date 
1872. This useful volume which has been since 
edited by his son, John C. Trautwine, Jr., and his 
grandson, John C. Trautwine, 3d, has been con¬ 
stantly enlarged and brought up to date, and is 
now in its 145th thousand. The second issue of 
the Twentieth Edition was printed this year. 

The Pocket Book is known by civil engineers 
all over the world, and it has been referred to as 
the Engineer’s Bible by those who desired to be 


184 


more descriptive than accurate. There are men 
in the profession who know nothing else of John 
C. Trautwine excepting that he compiled the En¬ 
gineer’s Pocket Book; what the author ever did 
as an engineer or architect is a blank to the ma¬ 
jority of the volume’s users. 

John C. Trautwine was born in Philadelphia 
in 1810, and, a« his son wrote of him, “In his 
early years he enjoyed such schooling as the 
times afforded for plain people.” At the age of 
eighteen he entered the office of Strickland, to 
study the profession of architect and engineer, 
but at that time the country had become intensely 
interested in transportation development, and 
projects for canals and railroads were almost 
as much in evidence as promising oil wells are 
today. Like the latter, many of the projects 
never materialized. 

Although Trautwine designed several build¬ 
ings, among them the edifice for the First Mora¬ 
vian Church, which stood at the corner of Frank¬ 
lin and Wood Streets for many years, from the 
beginning he seemed to set his mind on engineer¬ 
ing. He did make a design for the Merchants’ 
Exchange, but Strickland, his master, was the 
successful competitor. 

He received some experience in his chosen 
profession in Strickland’s office, and devoted a 


185 


great deal of time to railroad development, spe¬ 
cializing as a railroad engineer. In 1844 he went 
to South America and Central America, spend¬ 
ing a good deal of time between that year and 
1858 in the Southern Continent. He made sur¬ 
veys for the Canal del Dique, in Colombia; the 
survey and part of the construction of the Pan¬ 
ama Railroad; and headed an exploration expedi¬ 
tion along the rivers Atrato and San Juan, in 
search of an interoceanic canal route. 

As may be imagined by any one who ever has 
examined his Pocket Book, Mr. Trautwine was 
an inveterate note-taker. He left many bound 
volumes of notes, containing data for his publi¬ 
cation. It was while making notes that Mr. Traut¬ 
wine lost his right arm. The accident happened 
in 1854, in Port Richmond, where the Reading 
Railway has its export coal wharves. Mr. Traut¬ 
wine was caught between the bumpers of two 
coal cars, while he was making measurements, 
and his arm was so badly crushed that it had to 
be amputated. An illustration of the determina¬ 
tion which characterized him is given by one 
who saw him the day after he had had his arm 
amputated. He was propped up in bed, practicing 
writing with his left hand. 

His monument is not his work upon Panama 
and other Southern railroads, but his compilation 


186 


of the Civil Engineer’s Pocket Book, which he 
is said to have started in 1860. This would indi¬ 
cate that it required more than ten years’ work 
before the first edition was ready for the press. 








































































I 






IX 

THOMAS U. WALTER 
























































































THOMAS U. WALTER IN 1885 
Photograph by Gutekunst 





IX 

THOMAS U. WALTER 

I N WASHINGTON, where some of his early 
architectural drawings have been preserved, 
the name of Thomas U. Walter is probably 
better known among present day architects than 
it is in Philadelphia, his native city. Those who 
have seen these drawings have expressed them¬ 
selves as charmed with the beauty of his line and 
the general refinement of the finished work. He 
was preeminently a draftsman, but he was as 
well a practical architect, and at least two of 
his architectural productions attest him as one 
of the greatest architects this country produced 
in his time. 

The main building of Girard College, the best 
example of genuine Grecian Corinthian architec¬ 
ture in the world today, and the wings and dome 
of the national Capitol at Washington, are mas¬ 
terpieces that any one in his profession might be 
proud to have created. 

In making the statement of the best example 
of Corinthian architecture the remains of great 
examples in Europe have not been forgotten; but 
it should be remembered that these fine, ancient 
originals are now only ruins, and not in any 


193 


sense complete examples. Apart from this, it is 
probable that when they were erected they did 
not surpass in line or proportion, the Girard Col¬ 
lege building. 

Ancient Greece undoubtedly inspired Walter’s 
work, but he seems to have refined the copy of 
the original, until it is more or less a pristine pro¬ 
duction. 

Like many of our early architects and engi¬ 
neers, Thomas U. Walter started in life as a prac¬ 
tical builder. He began as apprentice to his father 
who was a master bricklayer, and not only stayed 
out his time, but worked as a journeyman in his 
trade, and became a master bricklayer himself, 
before he became an architect. 

Thomas U. Walter was born in Philadelphia 
on September 4, 1804, and while the obituary no¬ 
tice published the day after his death stated that 
at the age of fifteen he entered the office of Wil¬ 
liam Strickland, the fact is that at that age he 
became apprentice to his father, a master brick¬ 
layer and stone mason, which trade he learned 
thoroughly. 

As his father had a contract for the brick 
and stone work on the Bank of the United States, 
which structure, Strickland designed, it is prob¬ 
able that he did meet the architect about that 
time, and that something was said to the latter 
about the talent of the younger Walter as a drafts¬ 
man. 


194 


It is also probable that this circumstance had 
a great deal to do with his subsequent career, and 
his choice of a profession. However, he remained 
with his father until he had completed his time 
as apprentice, or upon attaining his legal age, 
at twenty-one. 

But when he had completed his trade, he did 
not immediately abandon it. He realized that 
while he had a genuine talent for drawing, and 
an enthusiasm for the work, he was deficient in 
his general studies, and did not have the necessary 
knowledge for an architect. 

Instead of announcing himself as architect, 
young Walter, when he was twenty-one, set up in 
business for himself as master bricklayer—at a 
trade he had mastered, and his office, as well as 
his residence at this time, was on the north side 
of Race Street, next to the northwest corner of 
Ninth. 

He studied architecture in the schools of the 
Franklin Institute, which Strickland taught, and 
applied himself to his general studies for a period 
of seven years, and it was not until 1832 that he 
was known as an architect. At that time he had 
an office on Fifth Street south of Walnut. 

In 1830 he entered the office of Strickland and 
studied hard for eighteen months. There he ac¬ 
quired a thorough knowledge of both architecture 
and of engineering as it was then taught. 


195 


Almost as soon as he started an office for him¬ 
self he received commissions for important works. 

His first work was a design for the new 
county prison for Philadelphia, a structure 
strongly flavored with the architecture which 
Haviland had used for the Eastern Penitentiary 
in Philadelphia, although it is in no sense a copy 
of that building. 

While Walter designed the County Prison as 
a castellated structure, when, upon its completion 
he was commissioned to design a Debtor’s Jail, 
adjoining the prison, he adopted an Egyptian 
style which had been unused in this country up 
to that time. Both of these structures are still 
standing, the Debtor’s Jail never having been 
used for the purpose for which it was erected, 
for the Pennsylvania Legislature wisely repealed 
the Insolvent Debtor’s Act before the jail was 
completed. The building has since been princi¬ 
pally used for the keeping of Commonwealth wit¬ 
nesses. 

These two structures were begun shortly 
after Stephen Girard, Philadelphia’s greatest mer¬ 
chant died, and left the bulk of his enormous for¬ 
tune, then the largest in the United States, to his 
adopted city, Philadelphia, for the purpose of 
erecting and maintaining a college for orphan 
boys. 


196 



MOYAMENSING PRISON 









As the President of the Trustees of Girard 
College was Nicholas Biddle, who also was head 
of the Bank of the United States, and one of the 
leading scholars and amateurs in Philadelphia, it 
was an almost foregone conclusion that the new 
college buildings would reflect the spirit of the 
classic architecture of ancient Greece, just as the 
Bank of the United States did. 

Here the choice was partly suggested by the 
minute instructions in Girard’s will, which speci¬ 
fied the thickness of the walls, the height of the 
building, and the character of windows it should 
contain. It was found that these instructions 
might be very well followed and still have the 
building built after the manner of the ancient 
Greek structures. 

Walter made a drawing of the proposed build¬ 
ings which design was accepted by the Philadel¬ 
phia City Councils in the early part of the year 
1833. This called for a large Corinthian struc¬ 
ture, much the largest copy of any Greek building 
in America, and the equal in size of any that the 
old world had produced. 

Designs for the proposed college were re¬ 
ceived from many parts of the United States, but 
the Building Committee, which had been appoint¬ 
ed by Councils to look after the construction, de¬ 
cided, after reviewing them that none of them was 
satisfactory, and it was then that Walter, who 


198 




had previously been elected architect, was re¬ 
quested to prepare a plan for the structure. 

To a certain extent his orders prescribed the 
kind of building the Committee had in mind, for 
he was directed to prepare a plan for the “Main 
Building, with a portico extending around the 
entire structure, and conforming in dimensions 
and form of the Celia , or body of the building, 
to the directions laid down in the will of Mr. 
Girard.” 

When it is considered that this action on the 
part of the Committee was taken on April 18, 
1833, and that on April 29th, of the same year, 
or e even days later, that the design substantially 
as we have it in the completed building today, 
was ready for adoption, one must come to the con¬ 
clusion either that Walter had previously pre¬ 
pared a design, or that he was a fast worker. 

It is more than likely that after Nicholas 
Biddle had seen the designs submitted in the com¬ 
petition, he decided that they would not do 
and at once suggested to young Walter the advis¬ 
ability of designing something after the antique, 
Whi'e this is merely a supposition, the inference 
from the facts in the case are plain. 

On July Fourth, 1833, the cornerstone of the 
Girard College was laid with appropriate cere¬ 
monies, and Nicholas Biddle made an address 
wh’ch was an excellent example of his polished 


199 


manner. In the course of his remarks, in allud¬ 
ing to the character of the architecture of the 
building, he said: 

“That the scene of so many blessings may be 
appropriate to them, it is’ intended to make this 
structure worthy of its great object—worthy of 
the name of its founder, and of the city which he 
was so anxious to embellish. Among the sciences 
most needed in this country, where individual 
wealth is hastening to indulge its taste, and where 
every state, and city, and country, requires ex¬ 
tensive public buildings, is architecture. 

“Indispensible in the rudest forms of life, it 
becomes the highest ornament of the most en¬ 
lightened. In every stage of its progress the style 
of public works displays the character of the 
nation which rears them. Disproportioned and 
grotesque among a coarse and unlettered people— 
in nations more advanced, often over-ornamented 
with the gaudy profusion and the caprices of 
tasteless wealth—it is only when sustained by 
the public spirit of a community at once enlight¬ 
ened and generous, that architecture attains its 
highest glory—a refined simplicity. 

“Of that perfection it is proposed that this 
structure shall present a model, the equal at least 
of similar works in any other country, and not 
unworthy of the best days of antiquity—a struc¬ 
ture which will at once gratify the honorable pride 


BUILDING, GIRARD COLLEGE 













of every citizen of the United States, and form 
the best study for all branches of industry con¬ 
nected with architecture.” 

There were certain changes made in the orig¬ 
inal design, before the building was finished. In 
the main, however, the accepted plan was fol¬ 
lowed, and the changes were the result of study 
in Europe made by Walter. 

Too much credit cannot be given the College 
Trustees, for their wisdom and courage, to say 
nothing of their generosity in sending the archi¬ 
tect to Europe for a period of study. He was 
young, the country was young, and the art of 
architecture in its best manner was only begin¬ 
ning to dawn upon the American public. 

After work had been begun upon the project, 
Walter was sent to make a tour of the principal 
countries of Europe, so he might study at first 
hand the best existing examples of classic archi¬ 
tecture to be seen there. Upon his return he 
took charge of the operations at Girard College, 
and the building was finished in 1847, at which 
time Walter was made one of the directors of 
the institution. 

As the architect of two of the most striking 
buildings in his native city, it was not at all 
strange that young Walter should be in demand 
for many other structures. 


202 


PRESTON RETREAT 






























The County Prison, usually called Moyamens- 
ing Prison in Philadelphia, had scarcely been 
started than Walter was called upon to draw the 
plans for another municipal structure—Wills Eye 
Hospital. This building, which is still standing 
on Race Street west of Eighteenth, opposite Logan 
Circle, remained virtually as erected until 1909, 
when the facade was somewhat changed in de¬ 
sign, and entirely changed in material. Origin¬ 
ally the front was of Pennsylvania marble, and 
it was replaced in the year mentioned by a facade 
of limestone. 

After his return from Europe Walter was 
given several other important commissions, or at 
least he made them important with his art. One 
of these was the mansion for Matthew Newkirk, 
which later Philadelphians knew as St. George’s 
Hall, at the northwest corner of Thirteenth and 
Arch Streets. The other was the Preston Retreat, 
on Hamilton Street west of Twentieth. This build¬ 
ing had another story added to it in 1909, but 
great care was taken to see that it harmonized 
with Walter’s work, and it would be difficult today 
to detect the line where the addition joined the 
older work, so skillfully was the alteration accom¬ 
plished. Newkirk’s house was removed nearly 
twenty years ago. 

In 1841 Walter was elected a member of the 
American Philosophical Society, and the follow- 


204 


ing year he was selected instructor in architec¬ 
ture in the schools of the Franklin Institute, of 
which institution he had been a member since 
1829, or soon after having completed his course 
in the same schools. 

In the forties Walter was a busy man. He 
designed several churches, among them the 
Fourth Universalist Church, which long stood at 
the northeast corner of Juniper and Locust 
Streets, and the Spruce Street Baptist Church, on 
Spruce Street, near Fifth. This latter work was 
one of the last works he erected in Philadelphia 
before going to Washington to become supervisor 
of buildings there. He also designed a mansion — 
for Nicholas Biddle at Andalusia, on the Dela¬ 
ware. 

It is possible that Walter was the architect 
of the old Crown Street Jewish Synagogue, on 
that street north of Race, because the Egyptian 
style of architecture followed in its exterior, is 
very similar to the style Walter introduced in his 
Debtor’s Jail, a style that had not been used here 
up to that time. It is true that the entrance to 
Odd Fellows’ Cemetery follows the same style, 
and that this was the work of Hoxie and Button. 

About 1850 Walter was engaged in building 
the breakwater at Laguayra for the Venezuelan 
Government, and not long after his return he was 
placed in charge of the alterations of the National 


205 


Capitol, Washington, his design for the extension 
of that building having been accepted. As Mills, 
the Government architect, was now retiring on 
account of age, Walter was appointed to that of¬ 
fice. 

The wings to the Capitol were added under 
his supervision, and the original dome of the 
Capitol was removed and one designed by Walter 
substituted. There has been some disposition to 
question the general verdict of this improvement, 
but in the main it probably will be the consensus 
of opinion that Walter’s dome is one of the finest 
pieces of architecture of its kind to be found in 
this country. Certainly it added dignity to the 
Capitol, and it is difficult to see the justice of the 
criticism of Latrobe’s son, who believed his fath¬ 
er’s work was superior, and more fitting to the 
structure. In this connection it should be borne 
in mind that after the wings had been added to 
the original building it was virtually another 
structure architecturally, and the original dome 
would have more than ever seemed dwarfed by 
the size of the building it capped. On the other 
hand, Walter’s dome is one of commanding mag¬ 
nificence ,and gives the right touch to the com¬ 
pleted work. 

Walter, while in Washington, made improve¬ 
ments on the Patent Office building, and designed 
the Government Hospital for the Insane. His work 


206 


upon the Capitol was not completed until during 
the Civil War, at the close of which he returned 
to his native city to take up his residence and 
resume his profession. 

In 1860 he lectured on architecture in Colum¬ 
bia College, New York City, having previously 
received from Lewisburg University the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy. Harvard later bestowed 
upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws. It is said 
that he was the first architect thus honored by 
that ancient institution. 

Upon the proposal for a new City Hall in 
Philadelphia being again agitated, Walter became 
identified with the new building. Just how much 
of this design was his work is not now known, 
but it is said that at the laying of the cornerstone 
he was asked and consented to assist the archi¬ 
tect, John MacArthur, in his work. It is certain 
that his name appeared as one of the draftsmen 
employed in that architect’s office, which position 
he held up to the time of his death on October 
30, 1887. 












. . 






. 

■ 




































X 

JOHN NOTMAN 


































JOHN NOTMAN 




















X 

JOHN NOTMAN 


HREE days after the death of John Notman, 



which occurred on March 3, 1865, the Phila- 


*“■ delphia Public Ledger contained, in its col¬ 
umn of news, a five-line note in agate type, rec¬ 
ording that event in these words: 

‘'Death of an Architect —Mr. John Notman, a well- 
known Architect of this city, died at his residence on 
Friday. The churches of St. Mark, St. Clement and 
Holy Trinity were designed by him.” 

Architects were not particularly regarded in 
those days, when the Civil War was drawing to a 
close. As a matter of fact, Notman received more 
of a notice than did Haviland when he died. The 
latter was ignored altogether by the local press. 
And yet both of these men had given Philadelphia 
some of its most important pieces of architecture, 
a few of which survive to the present day. 

William D. Hewitt, whose brother George stu¬ 
died with Notman, collected a list of the principal 
buildings erected by the latter, and these number 
forty-four, yet there is almost nothing about the 
architect to be found in the usual works of refer¬ 
ence. Westcott’s History of Philadelphia does not 
include him in the sketch of local architects, and 
numerous other volumes where it was thought 


213 


something should be said were consulted in vain. 
The main facts about the buildings designed by 
Notman given here, therefore, have been derived 
from notes made by Mr. Hewitt, who has gen¬ 
erously placed them at the writer’s disposal. 

However, it should be understood that Mr. Hew¬ 
itt is not responsible for other statements made 
here. 

John Notman, the son of David, and Mary 
(Christie) Notman, was born in Edinburgh, Scot¬ 
land, July 22, 1810. Very little about his life be¬ 
fore he came to this country, or, indeed, for the 
first few years after he arrived here, is known 
with any certainty as to details. 

It appears that he was apprenticed to a carpen¬ 
ter and builder, in his native city, and that he 
served his time. The nice distinctions between 
architect and builder were not then drawn, and 
every builder was of necessity an architect—or he 
was not a builder, but a journeyman, say, carpen¬ 
ter and joiner, or, perhaps a bricklayer. Notman 
must have been rather well-grounded in the 
science of architecture, because not long after his 
arrival in this country, he was engaged upon more 
or less important church structures. 

Whether or not it is to his credit, Notman seems 
to have been responsible for the advent of the 
brownstone structure in Philadelphia. If not the 
one to introduce that building material, he cer- 


214 


tainly was one of those who sought to popularize 
it, at a time when the characteristic red brick and 
Pennsylvania white marble trimmings were be¬ 
ginning to be regarded as passe . 

Notman is said to have come to Philadelphia 
soon after he had finished his apprenticeship in 
Edinburgh, or in 1831. If this statement is a 
true one, it is a fact that he did not figure in the 
City Directory of Philadelphia until 1837, when 
he is described as “Carpenter, Currant Alley; 
House, 184 South Eleventh Street.” 

Currant Alley is the street between Tenth and 
Eleventh Streets, and runs from Walnut to Spruce 
Streets. The Eleventh Street address would be 
two doors from the northwest corner of Eleventh 
and Spruce Streets. 

It is known that Notman did a great deal of 
work at Burlington, N. J., and Mr. Hewitt is of 
the opinion that he lived at Burlington for some 
years after he came to this country. In this event 
it may be that he went to that town soon after 
arriving in Philadelphia and worked at his trade 
of carpenter, subsequently removing to Philadel¬ 
phia and taking up the same trade along with the 
profession of architect. 

This view seems to be borne out by the circum¬ 
stance that between 1831, when he is said to have 
come here, and 1837, he evidently did not live in 
this city. On the other hand, the 31 may have 


215 


524 WALNUT STREET 
First Brownstone Residence in Philadelphia 








\ 


been a misprint for 37. However, the first build¬ 
ing he designed in this country, according to Mr. 
Hewitt, who has had access to information, was 
the Episcopal residence in Burlington, N. J. This 
work was erected in 1837, and the following year 
he designed and erected the Chapel of the Holy 
Innocents, in the same town. 

In the City Directories for 1839 and 1840, Not- 
man is described as above, but in the issue for 
1841, he first appears as “Architect.” By this 
time he had established a reputation as designer 
of buildings, largely through the success of his 
essays in Burlington, and from having designed 
and erected the building for the Academy of Nat¬ 
ural Sciences at Broad and Sansom Streets, which 
was the first structure erected for the Academy, 
its former homes having been originally used for 
other purposes. 

The Academy of Natural Sciences was erected 
in 1839, and not long after it was under way Not- 
man was called upon to design one of his best 
known works—Laurel Hill Cemetery. Although 
the date given in Mr. Hewitt’s list for Notman’s 
work on Laurel Hill is 1840, the Cemetery Com¬ 
pany was incorporated in 1836, and the first in¬ 
terment was made before the grounds were in 
readiness, in October of that year. 

It seems to be reasonable to believe that Not- 
man was not called in until about 1839 or 1840, 


217 


when he laid out the grounds, very much as we 
see them today, and at the same time designed and 
erected the Roman Doric entrance, and the Gothic 
chapel. For many years the Cemetery was one 
of the sights shown proudly to visitors, but in 
these days when it is more accessible, visitors are 
not taken there for sightseeing, although within 
its borders lie some of Philadelphia’s departed 
who achieved greatness in the flesh. 

Some one has said that it is possible to ascertain 
to within a few years the age of most of the build¬ 
ings in Philadelphia when one understands the 
fashion in building materials which reigned at 
different times. These might be called periods, for 
instance, there is a well-defined Brownstone 
period, and from the inquiries of the writer, he is 
led to believe that Notman introduced this mate¬ 
rial to his adopted city. 

If this surmise be correct, we are able to give 
the year when the introduction was made. In the 
year 1845 Notman was architect of three struc¬ 
tures, at least, in which brownstone was used for 
the facades. This brownstone, which is not to be 
confused with a darker and softer stone which 
subsequently was adopted by architects here, was 
a hard, well-wearing material, called Bellview 
stone, which was quarried in northern New Jersey 
near Newark. It had a rich, greyish brown tint, 
and may still be found in a few structures which 


218 



ST. MARK’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH 



survive in the older parts of the city. 

It is difficult to state which was the first build¬ 
ing erected here of this material, but it is probable 
that the building of the Bank of North America, 
which occupied the site of the present structure 
on Chestnut Street, was the first building to dis¬ 
play a front of Bellview stone. This building was 
erected in 1845, and the same year Notman de¬ 
signed and the cornerstone was laid for the Athen¬ 
aeum Building on Sixth Street south of Walnut 
where the brownstone may still be seen, and to 
have justified the selection of this material. The 
year before this, 1844, a building for the Mercan¬ 
tile Library, still standing at Fifth and Sansom 
Streets, was built by the architect. 

In 1845 Notman began the erection of what is 
regarded as his best piece of church architecture 
—St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, Locust Street west 
of Sixteenth. It is built of free stone, and, while 
its Gothic lines have been much admired, it is said 
that the architect thought highly of the tower and 
spire, which he believed to be his happiest effort. 
The church was completed in 1849, and conse¬ 
crated in 1850. In recent years a chapel was 
added to the original structure. 

While these works were proceeding Notman 
was also engaged in designing handsome resi¬ 
dences in other parts of the country. He erected 
a residence for Gustavus A. Myers, in Richmond, 


220 


Virginia; and one for J. P. Cushing, at Water- 
town, near Boston, the following year. In 1847 
he was architect for William H. Rogers, for whom 
he built a residence in Wilmington, Delaware. 

The success of Notman’s work on St. Mark’s 
caused him to be sought for other church edifices. 

In 1846 he erected the Episcopal Church of the 
Ascension, Lombard Street west of Eleventh, 
which has long ago passed into other hands. In 

1851 he designed the Church of St. Peter’s, Pitts- " 
burgh; St. Paul’s Church, Trenton, N. J.; and in 

1852 All Saint’s Church, Twelfth Street, south 
of Fitzwater, another structure which long ago 
passed into other hands. 

During the next decade Notman erected many 
fine church edifices, not only in Philadelphia, but 
elsewhere. About 1853 he built Calvary Presby¬ 
terian Church, on Locust Street west of Fifteenth, 
which is not so highly regarded as some of his 
other churches; and about the same time he built 
St. Bartholomew’s Church, in New York City. 

But his whole time was not devoted to church 
architecture, for he was much in demand for de¬ 
signing fine residences for our merchant princes. 
During the period just mentioned, he erected the 
Robert Iredell residence, Norristown; Heyl’s villa, 
Germantown; the Joseph Peace mansion, in Bor- 
dentown, N. J.; and the Taitrresidence, corner of 
Walnut and Sydenham Streets, now occupied as 


221 


the home of the Middle City Bank, and another 
evidence of the lasting character of the kind of 
brownstone Notman introduced for building ma¬ 
terial in Philadelphia. 

During this latter period, Notman designed 
some of his best work. One of his best efforts is 
St. Clement’s Episcopal Church, Twentieth and 
Cherry Streets, which in some particulars is one 
of the finest edifices in the city. The original in¬ 
terior decorations in St. Clement’s were the work 
of John Gibson, painter and decorator, who mar¬ 
ried a sister of Mrs. Notman, whose maiden name 
was Pullen. Mrs. Notman was a native of Eng¬ 
land. The husband of another sister of Mrs. Not¬ 
man, a Mr. Catanach, was the builder of St. Cle¬ 
ment’s and both of these relatives did similar work 
on Holy Trinity Episcopal Church, Nineteenth 
and Walnut Streets, which Notman also designed. 
William Gibson, a brother of John, mentioned 
above, designed the stained glass windows which 
were placed in St. Mark’s, St. Clement’s and Holy 
Trinity Churches. 

Holy Trinity Church has long been one of the 
pleasing features of the skyline out Walnut Street, 
west of Rittenhouse Square. Notman designed 
the building, and work was done on it during 1856 
and 1858. The tower, however, was not added 
until later. 

Notman’s original design called for a tower, 


222 



OLD BUILDING, MERCANTILE LIBRARY 













but at the time the completion was being discussed 
there was some disposition on the part of members 
of the vestry to erect a spire. However, the tower 
idea was adopted, since it was the original concep¬ 
tion, and George Hewitt, who had been a pupil of 
Notman, was selected to undertake the work. Con¬ 
sequently the tower as we have it today is the de¬ 
sign of Hewitt, and some critics believe it is the 
most impressive feature of the church. 

Some time during the fifties Notman erected the 
dwelling for one of the Ingersolls, at 524 Walnut 
Street. This building has been altered in later 
years, but there is enough of it remaining to dis¬ 
play what was the first brownstone residence 
erected in Philadelphia. It is of a redder stone 
than that which was brought from the Newark 
quarries, but evidently it was properly cut, for 
it is still in good condition. 

This was the busiest period of Notman’s career 
as an architect. He was called upon to design 
both the New Jersey State Capital, at Trenton, 
and the State Prison in the same city. He designed 
the Episcopal Academy on Locust Street, only 
removed last year to give way to the Sylvania 
Hotel, and also designed the Pennsylvania Rail¬ 
road offices on South Third Street and Willing’s 
Alley. 

At the same time he was sought to design the 
front of the Catholic Cathedral on Logan Square. 


224 


While this structure was originally the work of 
LeBrun, the facade is from the hand of Notman. 
Brownstone was selected for the front of the 
building, probably at Notman’s suggestion. 

Among other buildings designed by Notman 
was the Church at 70th Street and Woodland Ave¬ 
nue; St. John’s Church, Wilmington^ Delaware; 
the Catholic Church of the Annunciation, Tenth 
and Dickinson Streets; and a Catholic convent at 
Trenton, N. J. He also found time between these 
commissions to erect the Henry C. Gibson resi¬ 
dence at Forty-second and Walnut Streets; and 
the Eliza Gurney home at Burlington, N. J. He 
also designed “Alvethorpe,” the residence of J. 
Francis Fisher, and the Germantown home of IT 
Pratt McKean. 

Notman was not quite fifty-five years of age 
when he died, in 1865, and it is said that his end 
probably was hastened by having brought with 
him the Scotch custom of drinking immoderately. 
It is said of him that he was a one-bottle man; 
that is, that he could empty a bottle of brandy at a 
sitting. 

A brother of Notman went to Montreal and 
there established himself as a photographer en¬ 
joying for many years the reputation of being the 
leading photographic artist in Canada. 








' 

- 











• •• 












/ 







XI 

NAPOLEON LeBRUN 








I 



NAPOLEON LeBRUN 





XI 

NAPOLEON LeBRUN 

N APOLEON LeBRUN made reputations in 
the two largest cities of the United States. 
In Philadelphia, where he was born, edu¬ 
cated, began his profession and followed it for a 
quarter century, he erected several structures that 
have kept alive his name, and in New York City, 
where he passed the last part of his long life, he 
is even better recalled, for he lived long enough 
to see the beginning of the sky-scraper, and to 
have helped design at least one of them. 

It is a strange thing that in the evidently 
approved sketch of his career, which appeared in 
one of the biographical encyclopaedias, the facts 
about his work are condensed with the greatest 
care for brevity, while the facts regarding his 
genealogy are dwelt upon as matters of impor¬ 
tance; yet he, himself, of all his family, is the 
one whom the world will want to recall, although 
his father was successful in making translations 
from the French and other Latin languages into 
English. 

Born in Philadelphia, January 2, 1821, Na¬ 
poleon LeBrun was the son of parents both of 
whom were natives of Paris. A granduncle, 


231 


Thomas Antoine, Chevalier De Manduit Plesis, 
is said to have come to America at his own ex¬ 
pense along with Lafayette, and to have become a 
Lieutenant of Artillery in the Continental army 
during the Revolution. He distinguished himself 
at the Battle of Red Bank (Fort Mercer), where 
it is said he personally took as prisoner the Hes¬ 
sian commander, Count Dunop. He also was at 
the Battle of Brandywine, and spent that historic 
winter at Valley Forge. After the Battle of Mon¬ 
mouth, he returned to France only to come back 
with Rochambeau’s expedition, commanding artil¬ 
lery at the Siege of Yorktown. He subsequently 
went to the Island of San Domingo, where he was 
assassinated by the Revolutionists in 1791. 

Napoleon LeBrun’s father was Charles Fran¬ 
cois Eugene LeBrun, whose parents were Louise 
Alexandrine De Manduit, and Sir Charles Pierre 
Eugene LeBrun. His mother was Adelaide Louise 
De Monmignon Madelaine. Her parents were 
Marie de Monmignon and Leonard Madelaine. At 
the outbreak of the French Revolution, they came 
to America. In December, 1792, they arrived in 
New York, and then proceeded to Philadelphia, in¬ 
tending to go South to that part of Louisiana 
which is now Alabama, where they intended to 
settle. However, Monsieur Madelaine succumbed 
to the yellow fever epidemic that raged in Phila¬ 
delphia in 1793, but his widow survived until 


232 


1817. 

Leonard Madelaine is described in the Phila¬ 
delphia Directory of 1793 as a coach cypher 
maker, and his residence given as 71 Elm Street 
(New Street) between Second and Third. The 
name does not appear again in the Directory for 
twenty years, when the daughter, who became the 
mother of Napoleon LeBrun, opened an academy 
for young ladies. 

In the Directory for 1813 L. Madelaine, 
Teacher, is located at 159 South Second Street. 
This was just north of Spruce Street. In the Direc¬ 
tories for 1813 and 1814 the name of Charles 
LeBrun appears. He is described as teacher and 
his address given as 100 South Second Street, 
which was a few doors north of Walnut Street. 

Charles LeBrun, the father of Napoleon Le¬ 
Brun, came of a family which was distinguished 
by having had for several generations members 
as representatives in the Paris Parliament. He 
is said to have been sent to this country on a secret 
diplomatic mission during the administration of 
President Jefferson. In 1808 he returned to this 
country. What he did, or where he was residing 
between 1808 and 1813 cannot be learned, but 
he does not seem to have been in Philadelphia. 

In 1814 Charles LeBrun was still located at 
the Second Street address given in 1813. There 
was no Directory in 1815, but in 1816 we find him 


233 


at 159 South Second Street, described as teacher 
of English, French and Spanish languages, and 
also Mrs. LeBrun, for he had married in the 
meantime, as conducting a Seminary. 

It is possible that Charles LeBrun taught in 
his wife’s seminary, and may also have given in¬ 
struction to pupils of his own. In 1819 he has 
become “Sworn State Interpreter and Professor 
of French, Spanish and English languages,” and 
Mrs. LeBrun’s establishment is listed as a “Young 
Ladies’ Seminary.” 

The parents of Napoleon LeBrun were mar¬ 
ried in Philadelphia in 1815. The father was 
highly regarded as a linguist, and achieved some 
reputation as an author, or translator, having 
translated Pope’s “Essay on Man,” into French 
prose. He also made a French translation of 
“The Anti-Anglomano” of Don Pedro Estala, and 
a Spanish translation of Barere’s “La Libertad 
de los Mares.” He was also the author of “The 
Benefaction of a Philosopher,” “The Cry of Hu¬ 
manity Against Tyranny,” and several other poli¬ 
tical and literary works. He published an ar¬ 
rangement of Fenelon’s “Telemachus” for schools, 
which is said to have gone through more than 
one hundred editions. 

His son, Napoleon, was born January 2, 1821, 
and was named for the prisoner of St. Helena, 
who, it will be recalled, died the same year. The 

234 


} 



JEFFERSON MEDICAL COLLEGE, 1855 











































boy LeBrun, coming of a family of teachers and 
literati, naturally received the best of education, 
especially in the classics, and in languages. When 
he was fifteen years of age he was placed in the 
office of Thomas U. Walter, to learn the profes¬ 
sion of architect. It is evident that some of his 
talent for drawing was inherited, because one 
early member of the family became more or less 
prominent as a painter in France. 

At the time young LeBrun was placed in 
Walter’s office, that architect was rapidly rising in 
popular estimation. He already had built several 
structures that commanded attention in Philadel¬ 
phia, and he was at work upon his greatest effort, 
the main building of Girard College. Napoleon 
LeBrun remained with Walter until he had 
reached the age of twenty-one, when he imme¬ 
diately opened an office of his own. 

His first office was at what was then 188 
Spruce Street, between Seventh and Eighth 
Streets. One of his first important commissions 
was the design for the German Catholic Church 
of St. Peter’s, at Fifth Street and Girard Avenue. 
This structure was built of brick, and LeBrun 
provided it with a tall spire. About twenty years 
ago the whole building was faced with stone, after 
proceedings had been begun to canonize one of 
the members of the Redemptorist Order, which 
is in charge of this church—the Venerable John 

236 


i 


N. Neumann, fourth Catholic Bishop of Philadel¬ 
phia, whose remains lie in a crypt in the church. 

The corner stone of the edifice was laid in 
August, 1843, and the building completed in De¬ 
cember, 1845. At the time it was built it was in 
some ways one of the most distinguished and dig¬ 
nified church structures then in the city. The 
spire was considerably higher than any other, and 
in dimensions generally the structure commanded 
attention. The work was of the greatest assistance 
to the young architect’s reputation, although the 
building today would not be highly regarded from 
an architectural standpoint. 

Before the church was completed LeBrun was 
called upon to draw plans for the enlargement of 
the Jefferson Medical College, at Tenth and San- 
som Streets. For this institution he drew the 
design for a fine, Corinthian portico front, and 
extended the building out to Tenth Street sixteen 
feet. This alteration was made in 1845, and it 
had scarcely been completed when arrangements 
were being made for the erection of a great Cath¬ 
olic Cathedral at Eighteenth Street and Logan 
Square, then a rather remote section of the city. 

The Catholics never really had a Cathedral 
here until this one was erected, for the Bishops 
had made their residence, first at St. Mary’s 
Church, on Fourth Street, and then, after the 
Church of St. John the Evangelist, on Thirteenth 


237 


Street had been built, at that edifice. These werq 
the pro-Cathedrals, and neither of them was re¬ 
garded as befitting a large and important city, 
such as Philadelphia was becoming. So, the move¬ 
ment which started in 1845 bore fruit immedi¬ 
ately. 

As has been the history of all great Cathe¬ 
drals, the Philadelphia edifice had a number of 
architects, during the twenty years it was under 
construction. The history of the Cathedral is 
not very clear on the exact relation each of these 
architects had to the building as we see it today. 
An evident effort has been made to minimize the 
work of LeBrun on this structure, owing, prob¬ 
ably, to the early advent of two amateur archi¬ 
tects on the scene. 

It has been flatly stated that LeBrun did not 
originate the original plan of the Cathedral, but 
worked out a sketch submitted to him by two 
priests, Fathers Mailer and Torratore, who are 
pecially where ecclesiastical structures are con- 
said to have studied architecture before entering 
the priesthood. 

There is nothing particularly novel about this 
circumstance. In the majority of instances, es- 
cerned, it is the fate of architects to have some 
example pointed out to them for their guidance. 
With a cathedral this is even more frequently the 
method. There are canons of the Church which 


238 



CATHEDRAL OF SS. PETER AND PAUL 

Logan Circle 


✓ 













regulate the general design and character of 
church buildings. With a cathedral many more 
rules are to be followed to conform to ecclesiasti¬ 
cal law or custom. As LeBrun was, at the time 
he received the commission, a very young man, 
whose only experience in church architecture had 
been the designing of St. Peters’ Catholic Church, 
and the Seventh Presbyterian Church, it is more 
than probable that it was believed advisable to 
sketch out for his guidance certain features which 
were essential to any plan for a cathedral. 

While the front and the original dome were 
the work of Notman, it is admitted that the in¬ 
terior is the work of LeBrun. And in this con¬ 
nection it should be understood that the interior 
of the Cathedral is not by any means its least 
attractive side architecturally. 

Even Notman’s share in the Cathedral has 
been subdivided. He is the designer of the facade, 
but he had the assistance of John T. Mahony, who 
was placed in charge of the work in the middle 
of the fifties, when LeBrun had retired. However, 
Mahony was soon displaced, and LeBrun asked to 
take control again, which he did, and the building 
was virtually completed under his direction. The 
original design for the dome, as drawn by Not¬ 
man, featured a colonnade story, but Bishop 
Wood, whep he took charge of the See, rather 
wisely had this feature eliminated, and the dome 


240 


is much the better for the change. 

The Anti-Catholic rioters of 1844 burned the 
church of St. Augustine, on Fourth Street north 
of Race, and although at the time he was erecting 
St. Peters’ church, LeBrun was called upon to 
design a new edifice to replace the one destroyed. 
There was some difficulty in financing the under¬ 
taking, especially as the church authorities had 
to await the result of their suit agaist the City 
of Philadelphia. The award was only about half 
of the amount of loss sustained by the church, but 
subscriptions were raised and work proceeded. 
The cornerstone was not laid until May, 1847, and 
the church opened for services on Christmas day 
the same year. 

In 1847 the Musical Fund Society decided to 
enlarge its hall on Locust Street west of Eighth, 
and LeBrun was chosen to make the plans. This 
required the extension of the building sixteen feet 
on the north side, and necessitated a new front. 
At the same time care had to be exercised to see 
that the rare acoustic qualities of the hall were 
not impaired. 

The alteration was successful, and it may be 
imagined that it was during the work that LeBrun 
made some of those studies of acoustics that later 
were used to great advantage in the Academy of 
Music. LeBrun who had been a member of the 
Society was elected one of the managers. 


241 


On the site of the present Lincoln Building 
at South Penn Square and Broad Street, stood 
until about thirty years ago, the Seventh Presby¬ 
terian Church, generally called the Tabernacle 
Presbyterian Church. LeBrun was the architect 
of this imposing structure, and it is said to have 
been his first essay after he had opened his pro¬ 
fessional office. It was erected in 1842-43. Older 
Philadelphians may recall the building, with its 
colonnadeed facade, and the spire that arose above 
the roof to what was then regarded as a great 
height. 

LeBrun also designed the Protestant Episco¬ 
pal Church of the Nativity, which formerly stood 

0 

on Eleventh Street north of Washington Avenue, 
but was long ago displaced by a factory structure. 

In 1843 the architect was called upon to plan 
the enlargement and embellishment of the Eighth 
or Scot’s Presbyterian Church, on Spruce Street, 
west of Third, and its imposing facade was built 
from his designs. 

The one work for which LeBrun will be best 
remembered in Philadelphia is the Academy of 
Music, at Broad and Locust Streets, which, while 
it was erected more than sixty years ago, is still 
a model of what a house for grand opera should 
be. Probably more has been written about the 
wonderful acoustic properties of the house than 
has been the lot of any other building in this 


242 























country, and it is only natural that this success 
should have been attained for the greatest care 
was observed by the architects to make the audi¬ 
torium one in whch every word spoken or sung 
upon the stage might be heard in any part of the 
vast house. 

The true history of the Academy of Music 
is evidently yet to be written, but one might ven¬ 
ture the statement that LeBrun had been at work 
on the designs and studies for the building long 
before any other architect. The project was 
formed for a great opera house by the musical 
element in Philadelphia in 1852, and for the next 
two years the plan was cultivated. It was not 
until 1854 that the building committee announced 
its plans and called for designs from architects. 
The notice was given in October that year, and 
in the following December fifteen plans were re¬ 
ceived from architects in Philadelphia, New York 
and Boston. That of LeBrun was among them, 
but he had associated with him Gustavus Runge, 
who henceforth figured as one of the architects of 
the building. 

Studies had been made of the principal opera 
houses in Europe, mainly that of La Scala, in 
Milan, and that of San Carlo, in Naples. Ameri¬ 
can conditions called for something different in 
the matter of seating arrangements and the dis¬ 
posal of boxes. Generally speaking the interior 


244 


resembles, or resembled the auditorium of La 
Scala, although in no sense a copy of that house. 
The seating capacity, on account of the different 
methods in vogue in the two countries, was about 
the same, with the number favoring the Academy 
of Music. Indeed LeBrun always contended that 
the Academy had a larger seating capacity than 
La Scala. 

Having studied the subject of acoustics for 
large auditoriums, LeBrun, who had also made a 
study of the Musical Fund Hall, came to the con¬ 
clusion that by constructing the floor of the par¬ 
quet as an immense sounding board, he should be 
able to solve the problem. Consequently this 
part of the building was excavated and arched 
over with brick work, and on this the floor was 
laid. The result justified the architect’s decision. 

Brick was the material used in the construc¬ 
tion and so solidly was the work laid that even to 
the present day the structure is regarded as the 
strongest building for assemblages to be found in 
this city, and probably in the United States. The 
general style of architecture, the architects stated, 
was Byzantine, but in this, as usual it was the 
theme rather than the actual Byzantine that was 
followed. The interior, which was gorgeous, was 
the entire work of LeBrun. 

The Academy was begun in February, 1855, 
the cornerstone laid on July Fourth of that year, 


245 



the house opened January 26, 1857. The entire 
construction had required nineteen months, which 
was looked upon as remarkable for so large an ex¬ 
ample of structural work. 

At the close of the Civil War LeBrun went to 
New York where he remained until the close of 
his life, practicing his profession with as much 
success as he did in his native city. Among the 
buildings he designed in New York were the Ma¬ 
sonic Temple; the New York Foundling Asylum; 
the Metropolitan Life Insurance Building on Mad¬ 
ison Avenue (not the present sky-scraper) ; the 
building of the Home Life Insurance Company; 
the Hall of Education, and the New City Hall. 

LeBrun was a Fellow of the American Insti¬ 
tute of Architects, and served for years on its 
Board of Trustees. He was twice President of the 
New York Chapter, and was its representative on 
the Board of Examiners to the New York Depart¬ 
ment of Building for eighteen years. He was also 
President of the Willard Architectural Commis¬ 
sion charged with the duty of forming a note¬ 
worthy collection of architectural models for the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art. 

He was married in 1845 to Louise Adele La- 
jus, daughter of Paul Lajus, a merchant of Phila¬ 
delphia. He had three sons and two daughters, his 
eldest and youngest sons, Pierre and Michael, dis¬ 
played a talent for architecture, and they became 


246 


partners in the father’s firm in 1880. 
LeBrun died in New York City July 9, 


Napoleon 

1901. 



XII 

JOHN McARTHUR 










John McAktiiur 







XII 

john McArthur 

I T WAS clue to a Philadelphia architect that the 
largest building on this Continent was erect¬ 
ed. If the City Hall in Philadelphia is not 
still the largest single building in the United 
States, it was even more than that at the time it 
was virtually"completed, twenty years ago. John 
McArthur, of Philadelphia, was the architect, and 
the conception of a single tremendous structure 
was his idea, which, despite long and vigorous 
opposition, prevailed. 

McArthur was connected with large building 
construction throughout his professional career. 
At the time this is written there are standing in 
Philadelphia at least three structures designed 
by him, which at the time of their erection were 
regarded as worth the time of a sightseer—the 
Public Ledger building, the Post Office and Fed¬ 
eral building, and the City Hall. 

But notwithstanding his valuable work as an 
architect, McArthur was more distinguished for 
the structural character of his buildings than he 
was for their artistic merit. He did not add any¬ 
thing to the basic character of architectural de¬ 
sign, and did not develop any new motive that 


253 


was to leave a lasting influence on the architecture 
that followed. McArthur’s buildings were strong 
even if they were not beautiful; although he did 
not by any means neglect artistic treatment for 
his work. His chief fault in this direction was 
his tendency to the florid, and to overornamenta¬ 
tion. In his City Hall, for instance, there will 
be found snatches of every order of architecture, 
and of every style that has followed them. It 
can be imagined that simplicity was not a note 
often struck in such a design. 

Like many other of the early architects of Phil¬ 
adelphia, John McArthur entered his profession 
by way of the practical builder. Born in Wigton- 
shire, Scotland, May 13th, 1823, he was brought 
to this country at the age of ten years. As soon 
as he was old enough to be accepted he was ap¬ 
prenticed to his uncle, a carpenter, and learned 
that trade thoroughly, as may be imagined from 
the fact that he subsequently assisted his uncle 
as foreman on some important structures. 

Although he was apprenticed to the carpenter¬ 
ing trade, he early displayed ambitions to be an 
architect. He studied drawing and architecture 
after his day’s work was done, and subsequently 
attended an evening school, which seems to have 
been conducted by the Carpenters’ Company in 
their ancient Hall. It may be that he studied in 
the architectural school of the Franklin Institute, 


254 


because there are no available records showing 
the existence of such a school in Carpenters’ Hall 
at that period—1838-40. 

He was only twenty-five years of age when, in 
1848, he received the first prize for his designs 
for a new House of Refuge, his first public un¬ 
dertaking, and a large piece of construction work 
for so young an architect. He immediately 
opened an office at 55 South Seventh Street, just 
north of Walnut, and henceforth was to be known 
as an architect. He was entrusted with the en¬ 
tire work of erecting the new House of Refuge 
and was highly commended for his skill. 

In 1849, his uncle having received the contract 
for the erection of the west wing of the Pennsyl¬ 
vania Hospital, young McArthur, who was known 
almost to the day of his death as John McArthur, 
Jr., served as his superintendent of construction, 
and acted in a similar capacity when his relative 
was commissioned to erect the east wing to the 
same institution. 

McArthur soon had important commissions 
enough to keep him busy, and all of them called 
for substantial structures. He was an architect 
who believed a building should stand for all time, 
and consequently almost all of the work he did 
would have been fit for fortresses. 

One of his early commissions was the granite 
building for Dr. David D. Jayne, on Chestnut 


255 


Street below Third. Originally this had a tower 
and was at the time of its erection the tallest 
building in the city, if one excepts certain church 
spires. This was erected about 1850, and the next 
year McArthur was designing the Assembly 
Buildings, which were erected at the southwest 
corner of Tenth and Chestnut Streets, and stood 
until a few years ago when the Philadelphia Elec¬ 
tric Company removed it in order to erect its 
handsome modern home on the site. 

McArthur also built the granite building now 
somewhat modernized, for the Presbyterian 
Board of Publication, on Chestnut Street between 
Juniper and Broad Streets, and about the same 
time he erected the church on South Broad Street 
above Pine, for Dr. Wylie’s congregation. This 
edifice received a new front and was otherwise 
modernized about fifteen years ago, but at the 
time the original church was erected, it was re¬ 
garded as an excellent example of church archi¬ 
tecture. The architect also designed the edifice 
for the West Spruce Street Presbyterian Church, 
at Eighteenth and Spruce Streets, the spire of 
which was a feature in the fifties, when it was 
built. 

In 1850 the city had moved considerably west¬ 
ward from what had been its business and social 
center twenty-five years earlier. The ancient man¬ 
sions in Third and Fourth Streets already were 


256 




PUBLIC LEDGER BUILDING, 1867 




















being looked upon as too close to the mercantile 
life of the city, and the time when the merchant 
lived over his counting house was rapidly pass¬ 
ing, if it had not already become history. West 
Arch Street and west Locust, Spruce and Walnut 
Streets, as well as Chestnut Street, west of Broad, 
were being filled with the mansions of the well- 
to-do. There was a need for larger and more 
modern hotels, and during the next decade Phila¬ 
delphia saw the erection of three hotels that were 
the pride of the city, and the boast of the country, 
for there were no houses comparable either in 
size or in furnishings in the United States. 

These hotels were the Girard House, and the 
Continental Hotel, both at Ninth and Chestnut 
Streets, and both built from designs of McArthur. 
The other house was the LaPierre House, at 
Broad and Chestnut Streets. Two of these build¬ 
ings have passed away, and the last of the big 
hotels, The Continental, probably will be partly 
demolished by the time this chapter is printed, 
for the site is to be occupied by an even larger 
house, the Ben Franklin Hotel. 

It is interesting here to call attention to the 
fact that in 1858 when the Continental Hotel was 
in course of erection, the wiseacres and pessi¬ 
mists of that time predicted for it absolute failure. 
It was argued that the house was too large. Yet 
the new house which is to stand where this hotel 


258 


stood will contain more than 1200 rooms each 
with a private bath. In 1857 even home bathing 
was done in a rather primitive manner, and the 
hotel was regarded as up-to-date because it did 
have a bath room in it, but the private bathroom 
was yet to come. 

Just before the Civil War, McArthur, although 
still a young man, enjoyed some of the largest 
commissions given any Philadelphia architect. 
He was regarded as a builder who knew how to 
make a strong structure, and at the same time 
give it a goodly, artistic aspect, as the term was 
interpreted in those days, and attend to the many 
little conveniences the owner might not even have 
thought necessary. 

The largest and most important business con¬ 
cerns of the city went to him when they intended 
to build. Consequently we find him as architect 
for the First National Bank, Chestnut Street near 
Third; of the marble building next to the Conti¬ 
nental, erected for J. E. Caldwell & Co., and later 
used by Porter & Coates. This property was com¬ 
pletely changed in outward appearance about ten 
years ago, and is now to be removed to form a 
part of the site of the new hotel, the Ben Frank¬ 
lin, at Ninth and Chestnut Streets. 

Just after the Civil War, the Burd mansion at 
the southwest corner of Ninth and Chestnut 
Streets, was removed and the site occupied by 


259 


three marble buildings, still standing. These 
structures were designed by McArthur, and some 
idea of their staunch character may be had by 
the knowledge that they have twice been seriously 
attacked by fires of more than ordinary violence, 
but only the floors and roofs had to be repaired, 
for the wails withstood the flames. 

Among other buildings designed by McArthur 
about this time, or just before the Civil War, were 
the structures for the Schuylkill Navigation Com¬ 
pany, Walnut Street below Fifth; the Franklin 
Market House, Tenth Street north of Chestnut, 
never used as a market but occupied by the Mer¬ 
cantile Library Company, which is still in pos¬ 
session. This w 7 as the first modern market house 
erected in Philadelphia, and in that sense may be 
said to have been an experiment. While the build¬ 
ing never served for its original purpose, the 
style was set, and all the subsequent market 
houses erected in Philadelphia have followed Mc¬ 
Arthur’s model. 

All of McArthur’s work was not confined to 
Philadelphia. He designed and built Pardee Hall, 
Lafayette College, at Easton, Penna.; the Luzerne 
County Prison, at Wilkes-Barre, a Presbyterian 
Church, and Bank, in New Castle, Delaware; the 
Alms House in Wilmington, Delaware, and a man¬ 
sion for Henry Becket on the Bonaparte Estate, 
at Bordentown, New Jersey. 


260 



CONTINENTAL HOTEL, BUILT 1858 
At the right is marble front, also designed by McArthur 







During the Civil War, McArthur was what 
might be called resident architect for the Federal 
Government in Philadelphia, for it was under his 
supervision and from his designs that the war 
hospitals and other Governmental buildings in 
that city were constructed. At the close of that 
conflict he was commissioned to build the naval 
hospitals at Philadelphia, Mare Island, California, 
and at Annapolis, Maryland. The Pennsylvania 
State hospitals for the insane at Danville, and 
Warren, were erected by McArthur. 

In addition to a great deal of public work of 
the character mentioned, the architect was in 
demand for the designing of city houses and man¬ 
sions for many wealthy Philadelphians. When 
Dr. David D. Jayne decided upon building a great 
house that would vie with any in the country, he 
called upon McArthur to furnish the designs and 
superintend the construction. The result was the 
famed “Marble Palace” at Nineteenth and Chest¬ 
nut Streets, removed a few years ago, and re¬ 
placed by the Aldine picture theatre. The man¬ 
sion never was occupied by its owner, for Doctor 
Jayne died just about the time the building was 
completed, but his family resided there until the 
death of the Doctor’s widow, about fifteen years 
ago. 

It was through his connection with Doctor 
Jayne that McArthur was referred to George W. 


262 


Childs after the latter had gained possession of 
the properties at Sixth and Chestnut Streets in 
1866. Mr. Childs had decided upon a new home 
for the Public Ledger , which he had taken over 
two years before, and intended to erect a news¬ 
paper building such as was then unknown in this 
part of the world. 

There stood on the corner a five-story brown 
stone building, known as the Howell Building, 
which was not old, having been erected in 1854 
or 1855, and to this property was added many 
small properties on Sixth Street. It was the 
architect’s duty to weld these into a single struc¬ 
ture that would at once have the most modern 
facilities for publishing a newspaper and be an 
architectural feature to that section of the city. 
This was rather ably accomplished by McArthur, 
who raised a Mansard roof over the whole and 
topped it with three dome-like structures, having 
replaced the ancient buildings on Sixth Street 
with a brown stone facade matching in design 
and treatment as well as in color of the stone, 
the building at the corner. The result was out¬ 
wardly a new building, and the interior was ad¬ 
mirably arranged for the purposes of publishing a 
newspaper. At the time the building was for¬ 
mally opened in 1867, it was the only one of its 
kind in the United States. 

McArthur had scarcely finished the new Ledger 


263 


building before he was engaged upon another 
marble palace. This was for the Ledger's pro¬ 
prietor, and the house, which still stands at Twen¬ 
ty-second and Walnut Steets, while not so large 
as the mansion for Doctor Jayne, was the most 
luxurious and substantial dwelling in the country 
at the time of its erection. The exterior was not 
showy, but designed along simple lines, of no par¬ 
ticular style of architecture, but the interior con¬ 
tained the most remarkable wood finishing to be 
found anywhere in 1868, when the mansion was 
erected. The floors were as solidly built as a 
safe, and the walls were so generous in their pro¬ 
portions that twenty years ago, when the old man¬ 
sion was sold to a syndicate, it was proposed to 
alter it into an apartment house, by adding to the 
structure five stories and a roof garden. Few 
three-stoiV houses of the present day would per¬ 
mit of a similar addition to their walls. 

Philadelphia discussed the necessity and advis¬ 
ability of erecting a new City Hall as early as 
1838, but while the project was revived from time 
to time and lively interest was intermittently 
shown the scheme, nothing of importance was 
done toward the proposal until 1868. Serious 
steps were taken in 1847 to have such a building 
erected on State House Square and this was dis¬ 
cussed until the Civil War gave Philadelphians 
something else to think about. McArthur was 


264 


McArthur's original design for Philadelphia city hall, 1873 































early an enthusiast on the subject and is said to 
have made designs for the structure proposed in 
1847, and again in 1868. Consequently, when the 
Legislature passed the Public Buildings Act in 
1870, and designated Broad and Market Streets 
as the site, the architect was one of those who 
submitted plans for the structure. 

Probably no other architect in Philadelphia had 
devoted the same amount of attention to the sub¬ 
ject as John McArthur, and it was therefore fit 
that he should have been selected architect for 
the building. 

His original design was for a single immense 
structure, exactly like the building we have 
known, excepting that instead of a tall, campanile¬ 
like tower on the north end of the building, there 
was a dome-like feature of lesser height. How¬ 
ever, both designs provided for a statue of Wil¬ 
liam Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania and of 
the city of Philadelphia. 

The attitude toward the City Hall changed dur¬ 
ing the time the excavations were being made for 
the foundations. Work was started with the 
idea of a single building. Before the cellars were 
dug it was decided that there should be four sep¬ 
arate buildings erected on the four Penn Squares. 
McArthur had so carefully planned his structure 
that he was able to swing about with the turn of 
the tide. Finally, even after the foundations had 


266 


been partly laid, the single building plan was 
once more adopted by the Commissioners, and 
the work continued as if nothing had happened. 

At the time the cornerstone was laid, in 1874, 
it was stated that the building would cost $10,000,- 
000. It also was believed that it would be com¬ 
pleted in at least ten years. Neither statement 
was correct. The cost was $25,000,000, and the 
building was thirty years in course, before the 
Commission was dissolved and the structure de¬ 
clared complete. It is true that within ten years 
of the laying of the cornerstone, certain depart¬ 
ments of the city were housed in the building, and 
in 1887, the city and county departments gener¬ 
ally were moved in. 

About the same time work was being proceeded 
with on the City Hall, McArthur was called upon 
to represent the Architect’s office of the United 
States Treasury Department in Philadelphia and 
superintend the erection of the Federal and Post 
Office Building at Ninth and Chestnut and Mar¬ 
ket Streets. This was another large undertaking, 
and another substantial structure, although more 
use was made in it of iron construction than had 
been employed in the City Hall. This structure 
also required an enormous time to erect. It was 
another instance where ten years was as one is 
today, but we are not erecting fortresses now¬ 
adays, merely buildings which in time will have 


267 


to be displaced. 

McArthur, in addition to the work mentioned, 
rebuilt St. Paul’s Catholic Church, and erected 
many buildings for William Weightman, among 
them the iron-front stores on Market Street below 
Seventh, since removed. He designed Wootton, 
the country place of George W. Childs, at Bryn 
Mawr, which was given the appearance of an Eng¬ 
lish country house. McArthur also held many 
commissions for private structures, and in all of 
them the main claim to distinction is to be found 
in their solidity. He erected no dream palaces but 
buildings that seem to have ability to withstand 
the siege of time. 

John McArthur died January 8, 1890, having 
lived a busy life, and left some lasting impress 
upon his times. He may be said to have been the 
last of Philadelphia’s early architects, and were 
he now living would celebrate his centenary this 
year. 


INDEX 


Academy of The Fine Arts, 
Pennsylvania, 113, 128, 

150. 

Academy of Music, 241; 242- 
246. 

Academy of Natural 
Sciences, 217. 

Aldine Theatre, 262. 

Alexander I, Emperor of 
Russia, 147. 

All Saints’Episcopal Church, 
221 . 

Almshouse, Blockley, 13. 

Almshouse, Wilmington, 
Del., 260. 

Amateur Architects and 
Professional Builders, 49- 
71. 

American Institute of Archi¬ 
tects, 246. 

American and Canadian 
Bridge Co., 179. 

“American Pharos, or Light¬ 
house Guide, The,” 137. 

American Philosophical So¬ 
ciety, see Philosophical 
Society. 

Analectic Magazine, 11. 

Andalusia, Biddle House at, 
205. 


Andriani, Count, 84. 

“Annals of Philadelphia,” 
Watson’s, 39. 

Annunciation, Catholic 
Church of the, 225. 

“Anti-Anglomaniac, The,” 
234. 

Anti-Catholic Riots of 1844, 
241. 

Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of 
American Biography, 6. 

Arcade, Philadelphia, 146, 
156, 159. 

Architecture, Colonial or 
Georgian, 5; Grecian Cor¬ 
inthian, 193; Gothic, 8, 9; 
Egyptian, 196, 205; Byzan¬ 
tine, 245. 

Arch Street Theatre, 13, 20. 

Archives, State, repository 
for in State House Group, 
56. 

Arts of Design, History of, 
Dunlap, 6, 111. 

Ascension. Episcopal Church 
of the, 221, 225. 

Assembly Buildings, 256. 

Assembly, Provincial, first 
sat in State House, 59. 


269 - 


Athenaeum, Philadelphia, 
220 . 

Atrato River, Colombia, 186. 

Baltimore Cathedral, 117. 

Baltimore, Lord, 66. 

Baltimore and Ohio Canal, 
137. 

Banks: First National, 
259; Girard National, 9, 
16, 70; Mechanics, 13, 22; 
Middle City, 222; of North 
America, 99, 220; of Phil¬ 
adelphia, 13, 22, 113, 128; 
of Pennsylvania, 11, 99, 
101, 170; of the United 
State (first), 9, 6, 70, 99; 
(second), 13, 16, 22, 150, 
181, 194, 198; U. S. Branch 
of Deposit, Norfolk, Va., 
171. 

Barare, 234. 

Bartram, John, American 
botanist, house of one of 
the surviving examples of 
Georgian architecture, 43; 
built his mansion and 
probably designed it, 44. 

Battle of Memphis, 180. 

Battle Monument, Baltimore, 
134. 

Becket, Henry, 260. 

Bellevue Stone, 218, 220. 

Ben.iamin Franklin Hotel, 
258, 259. 

Berks County (Penna.) 
Prison, 146, 162. 

Biddle, Nicholas, 16, 198, 

199, 205. 

Birch, William, 12, 90. 

Blights, The (George and 
William), 160. 


Blockley Almshouse, 13, 21. 

Blodget, Samuel, Sr., 71. 

Blodget, Samuel, Jr., 9, 70, 
71. 

Blodget (Rebecca Smith), 
70. 

Blodget’s Hotel, Washing¬ 
ton, D. C., 70. 

Bonaparte Joseph, Estate 
of, 260. 

Boude, Thomas, 62. 

Brahl, Lewis, 62. 

Brandywine, Battle of, 232. 

Brett, John, one of the build¬ 
ers of “Old Swedes,” 36. 

Brick, early manufacture of 
in Philadelphia, 31; none 
was brought from Eng¬ 
land, 31; price of in 1685, 
30. 

Bridges, Permanent, at Mar¬ 
ket Street, 9; Upper Ferry, 
130, 178, 179; Niagara, 

179. 

Bridport, George, 148. 

Bridport, Hugh, 148, 150, 156. 

Brodeau, Anna Maria, 80. 

Brownstone introduced in 
Philadelphia, 214, 218, 219, 
224. 

“Builders’ Assistant, The,” 
156. 

Bunker Hill Monument, 138. 

Burd Mansion, 259. 

Burlington County, N. J., 
Prison, 134. 

Burlington, N. J., Episcopal 
residence in, 217. 

Bush Hill, residence of An¬ 
drew Hamilton, 60. 


270 


“Buttonwood Church,” Old, 
first use of Greek models 
on public buildings in 
Philadelphia, 69. 

“Cadmus; or a Treatise on 
the Elements of Written 
Language,” 82. 

Caldwell & Co., J. E., 259. 

Calvary Presbyterian 
Church, 221. 

Campbell, Henry R., 24. 

Canals, Chesapeake and 
Ohio, 176; Delaware and 
Chesapeake. 23; del Dique, 
Colombia, 186; Erie, 18; 
Pennsylvania State, 23; 
Santee, 171. 

Capital City (Washington), 

86 . 

Capitol, National at Wash¬ 
ington. 81, 84, 88, 111, 112, 
113, 114, 115, 116, 126, 206, 
207. 

Capitol, Pennsylvania, at 
Harrisburg, 130. 

Carpenters’ Company of 
Philadelphia, 6, 34, 36, 38, 
39, 43, 56, 69, 254. 

“Carpenters’ Company, His¬ 
tory of,” 34, 55, 63, 66. 

Carpenters’ Hall, 58, 68, 78, 
255. 

“Carpenter, The Rich,” 
(Samuel Powell), 39. 

Carpenter, Samuel, “Slate 
Roof House,” built for, 32, 
35. 

Cathedral of SS. Peter and 
Paul, 224, 237-240. 

Carthegena and Magdalena 
Canal, 182. 


Catanach, Archibald, 222. 

Centre Square, 105, 108, 109. 

Centre Square Waterworks, 
171-174. See Waterworks, 
Philadelphia. 

Charleston College, 125. 

Charleston, S. C., Siege of, 

(1780), 86. 

Chestnut Street Opera 
House, 113. 

Chestnut Street Theatre, 
Philadelphia, 8, 12, 17. 

Child, James, 62. 

Childs, George W., 262-263; 
mansion of, 264; country 
seat of, 268. 

Choragic Monument at Ath¬ 
ens, 22. 

Christ Church, 36, 41, 42, 43, 
52; steeple of, 43; said to 
have been built by Robert 
Smith, 67. 

City Hall, new, New York 
City, 246; old, 87. 

City Hall, Philadelphia, 206, 
253, 254, 264-267; old, 66. 

“Civil Engineers’ Pocket 
Book,” 184, 185, 186, 187. 

Clark, Allen C., Esq., 76. 

Clark, Benjamin, an original 
associator of Carpenters’ 
Company, 40; died in 1744, 
40. 

Cobley, Rev. Benjamin, 147. 

Cockerell, London architect, 
93. 

Colonnade Hotel, 160. 

Colonnade Row, 146, 160. 

Columbia College, 207. 

Columbia Historical Society, 
76. 

Columbia Magazine, 58. 


271 


Congress Hall, old, 58, 87. 

Continental Congress, 68. 

Continental Hotel, 258. 

Crown Street Synagogue. 
205, 

“Cry of Humanity Against 
Tyranny,” 234. 

Cushing, J. P., 221. 

Cupola, characteristic of 
early Philadelphia, 64. 

Custom House, First, 12, 16; 
second, 13, 16. 

Dancing Assembly, 90. 

Dauphin County (Penna.) 
Prison, 146. 

Davis, Evan, 63. 

Davis, J., Supt. of Philadel¬ 
phia Waterworks, 174. 

Deaf and Dumb Asylum, 
Philadelphia, 156, 158. 

Debtors’ Prison, Philadel¬ 
phia, 196. 

De Beauharnais, Countess 
77. 

De Kalb Monument, Charles¬ 
ton, 138. 

Delaware Breakwater, 20, 
21, 24. 

Delaware and Chesapeake 
Canal, 23, 110, 123. 

Delaware and Maryland 
Railroad, 23. 

Delaware and Schuylkill 
Canal, 102, 182. 

De Manduit, Louise Alexan¬ 
drine (Mrs. C. P. Le Brun) 
232. 

District Court House, 58, 66. 


Dorsey, John, said to have 
designed fagade of Penn¬ 
sylvania Hospital, 65; 
mentioned, 9. 

Dublin Exchange, 9. 

Dunop, Count, Hessian Col¬ 
onel, 232. 

Du Coudray, French Engi¬ 
neer, 86. 

Dunlap. William, 6, 8, 87, 
111, 125, 138. 

Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, 
178. 

EYlinburgh University, 77. 

Ellet, Col. Charles, Jr. (1810- 
1862), 169, 176-180. 

Ellis, Thomas, 62. 

Elmes, James, 147. 

“Engineers’ Bible,” see 
“Civil Engineers’ Pocket 
Book.” 

Episcopal Academy, 58, 224. 

Erie Canal, 18. 

“Essay on the Laws of 
Trade, an,” 179. 

“Essay on Man,” 234. 

Essex County (N. J.) Prison, 
146, 160. 

Estala, Don Pedro, 234. 

Exchange, Baltimore, 117. 

Fairman. Benjamin, 62. 

Fat Hog Meeting House, Tor¬ 
tola, 76. 

Federal Building, Philadel¬ 
phia, 253, 267. 

Federal City (Washington, 
D. C.) 71, 88, 112. 

First Moravian Church, 185. 

First Presbyterian Church, 
Philadelphia, 145, 150, 151. 


Fisher, J. Francis, 225. 
Fitch, John, 80. 

Fleeson, Plunket, 62. 

Fort Mercer, 232. 

Fourth Universalist Church, 
205. 

Fox, Samuel M., 11, 99, 100. 
Franklin, Benjamin, 41, 63, 
64, 75. 

Franklin Institute, 146, 156, 
158, 205, 254. 

Franklin Market House, 260. 
Friends’ Asylum, 13, 16. 
Fulton. Robert, 115. 

Gallagher, Doctor, 125. 
General Loan Office, 56. 
Gibson, Henry C., 225. 
Gibson, John, 222. 

Gibson, William, 222. 

Gill, Edward H., 24. 

Girard College, 193, 198-202, 
236. 

Girard House, 258. 

Girard National Bank, 9. 
Girard, Stephen, 16, 196, 198, 
199. 

Godefroy, Maximilian, 134. 
Godfrey, Thomas. 62, 63. 
Gothic Mansion, Dorsey’s, 9. 
Graff. Frederick (1775-1847), 
169-175. 

Gray’s Inn, London, 51. 
Greenough, Horatio, 139. 
“Guide to the National Ex¬ 
ecutive Offices,” 138. 
Gundenham Manor, Somer¬ 
setshire, Eng., 147. 
Gurney, Eliza, 225. 

Hall of Education, New 
York City, 246. 


Halls of Justice, New York, 
147, 160. 

Hamilton, Andrew, lawyer. 
Speaker of the Assembly, 
9, 50-60. 

Harding, Thomas, 62. 

Harrison, John (D. 1760), 
36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 62. 

Harrison, Joseph (D. 1734), 
40. 

Harvard University, 207. 

Haviland, Ann, 147. 

Haviland, Edward, 162. 

Haviland, James, 147. 

Haviland, John (1792-1852), 
145-163; examples of his 
work remaining, 145-147; 
born in Somersetshire, 
England, 147 ;* studies un¬ 
der Elrnes, 147; goes to 
St. Petersburg, 148; comes 
to America, 148; opens 
studio with Bridport in 
Philadelphia, 148; exhibits 
in Academy, 1817, 150; de¬ 
signs First Presbyterian 
Church, 150; influenced by 
Latrobe’s work, 151; erects 
St. Andrew’s Episcopal 
Church, 152; turns atten¬ 
tion to prisons, 152; de¬ 
sign for Western Peniten¬ 
tiary rejected, 154; is en¬ 
gaged to erect Eastern 
Penitentiary at Philadel¬ 
phia, 155; novel design for 
prison architecture, 155; 
issues “Builders’ Assis¬ 
tant,” 156; was a pioneer 
156; some of his promi¬ 
nent works, 156; designs 
building for Franklin In- 


273 


stitute, 158; architect of 
Philadelphia Arcade, 159; 
alters Walnut St. Theatre, 
159; designs Colonnade 
How, 160; works in other 
cities, 160-162; design for 
Insane Department of 
Pennsylvania Hospital re¬ 
jected, 161; marries sister 
of General von Sonntag, 
162; his sons, 162-163; bur¬ 
ied in crypt in St. An¬ 
drew’s Church, 162, men¬ 
tioned, 196, 213. 

Haviland, John von Sonn¬ 
tag, York Herald, 162. 

Haviland & Bridport, 150. 

Hazlehurst, Isaac, 101. 

Hazlehurst, Mary. See Mrs. 
Latrobe. 

Henmarsh, John. See Hen- 
marsh, Joseph. 

Henmarsh, Joseph, an orig¬ 
inal associator of Carpen¬ 
ters’ Company. D 1741. 
38, 39. 

Hesselius, Gustavus, 62. 

Hewitt, George, 213, 224. 

Hewitt, William D., 213, 214, 
215. 

Heyl’s villa, Germantown, 
221 . 

Hinds, Robert, 62. 

Historical Society of Penn¬ 
sylvania, 54, 66, 67. 

Hitchcock, Joseph, 62. 

Hoban, James, 125, 126. 

Holden, Isaac, 161. 

Holland, John J., architect 
and scene painter, 8. 

Holland, William, 62. 


Holy Trinity Episcopal 
Church, 222; tower of, 224. 

Home Life Insurance Co. 
Building, 246. 

Hospital for Insane, U. S., 
Washington, 206. 

House Carpenters’ Society, 6. 

House, Mrs. Mary, 78. 

House of Refuge, 255. 

Howard, John, philanthro¬ 
pist, 152, 154. 

Howell Building, 263. 

Hoxie & Button (J. C. Hoxie 
and S. D. Button), 205. 

j 

Illyssus, Temple on the, 151. 
See Temple of the Muses. 

Independence Hall, 7, 9, 

20, 40. 43, 49, 132. See 
State House, Philadelphia. 

Ingersoll mansion, 224; first 
brownstone residence in 
Philadelphia, 224. 

“Inland Navigation,” 137. 

Iredell, Robert, residence of, 
221 . 

Jail. Walnut Street, 68. 

James River and Kanawha 

* Canal Co., 178. 

Jayne, Dr. David D., 255, 
262, 264; “Marble Palace,” 
of, 262. 

Jefferson Medical College, 
237. 

Jefferson, Thomas, President 
of the United States, 84, 
111, 112, 113, 114, 126, 233. 

Jewish Synagogue on CrowTi 
Street, 205. 

Jones, Daniel, 62. 

Jones, Humphrey, 62. 


274 



Jones, William, Secretary of 
' the Navy, 114. 

Jost van Dyke, Island of, 76. 

“Journal of a Cruise Made 
to the Pacific Ocean,” 12. 

“Journal of Latrobe,” 76, 92. 

Journal of Prison Discipline, 
154. 

“Journal of William Ma- 
clay,” 58. 

Junto, The, 63, 65. 

Justice, Philip, 136. 

Justus, Mr. See Justice, 

Philip. 


Kneass, Samuel Honeyman 
(1806-1858), 18, 169, ISO- 
184. 

Kerr, Thomas, 62. 

Keystone Telephone Com¬ 
pany’s Building, 32. 

Kearsley, Dr. John, 41; no 
evidence that he actually 
designed Christ Church, 
42; was chairman of Com¬ 
mittee which erected 
Christ Church, 42; one of 
commission to erect State 
House, 52; had design for 
State House, 54; erron¬ 
eously mentioned as arch¬ 
itect of State House, 55. 


“La Libertad de los Mares,” 
234. 

Lancaster County (Penna.) 
Prison, 146. 

La Pierre House, 258. 

La Scala Opera House, 
Milan, 244, 245. 

Latrobe, Benjamin Henry 
(1764-1820), 5, 7, 8, 11, 65, 
91, 92-96, 99-118, 123, 126, 
128, 129, 136, 151, 170, 171; 
first visit to Philadelphia, 
99; designs Bank of Penn¬ 
sylvania, 100; loses his li¬ 
brary of architectural 
books, 100; marries Mary 
Hazlehurst, 101; Philadel¬ 
phia his home, 1798-1804, 
101; proposes waterworks 
for Philadelphia, 104; pio¬ 
neer in water engineering, 
109; office on Arch Street, 
109; surveys line for Dela¬ 
ware and Chesapeake 
Canal, 110; President Jef¬ 
ferson calls him to Wash¬ 
ington to take charge of 
building Capitol, 111; his 
two noted pupils, Strick¬ 
land and Mills, 111; in 
Washington, 112, 113; 

some of his buildings in 
Philadelphia, 113; builds 
south wing of National 
Capitoi, 114; resigns as 
Surveyor of Public Build¬ 
ings in Washington, 114; 
goes to Pittsburgh to rep¬ 
resent Fulton, 115; his dis¬ 
tress, 115; recalled to 
Washington, 115; rebuilds 
ruined . Capitol, 115; his 


Lafayette College, 260. 
Lafayette. Marquis de, 178, 
18i, 232. 

Lafayette Triumphal Arch, 
Philadelphia, 180. 
Laguayra Breakwater, 205. 
Lajus, Paul, 246. 


275 


Washington achievements, 
116; opens office in Balti¬ 
more, 117; designs Cath¬ 
olic Cathedral in Balti¬ 
more, 117; goes to New 
Orleans, 117; dies of yel¬ 
low fever, 117. 

Latrobe, Mrs. B. H., 101, 115. 

Latrobe, Rev. Benjamin, 93. 

Latrobe, Henry, S. B., 117. 

Latrobe, John H. B., 206. 

Laurel Hill Cemetery, 217. 

Lawrence, Thomas, Commis¬ 
sioner to erect State 
House, 52. 

Leach, Thomas, 63. 

Leach, William, 62. 

Le Brun, Napoleon (1821- 
1901), 231, 247; reputation 
in Philadelphia and New 
York, 231; born in Paris, 
231; ancestry, 232-234; 
placed in Walter’s office to 
learn architecture, 236; 
opens office, 236; builds 
St. Peter’s Catholic Church 
236-237; designs new fa¬ 
cade to Jefferson Medical 
College, 237; work on 
Catholic Cathedral of SS. 
Peter and Paul, 239-240; 
rebuilds St. Augustine’s 
Catholic Church, 241; de¬ 
signs front for Musical 
Fund Hall, 241; designs 
Tabernacle Presbyterian 
Church, 242; other works, 
242; his work on Academy 
of Music, 242-246; goes to 
New York, 246; principal 
works in New York, 246; 
marriage, 246; dies in New 


York, 247; mentioned, 225. 

Le Brun, Mrs. (Louise 
Adelel Lajus), 246. 

Le Brun, Charles Francois 
Eugene, father of Napol¬ 
eon Le Brun, 232, 233, 234; 
author, 234. 

Le Brun, Mrs. (Adelaide 
Louise De Monmignon 
Madelaine), mother of Na¬ 
poleon Le Brun, 232, 233, 
234. 

Le Brun, Sir Charles Pierre 
Eugene, 232. 

Le Brun, Mrs. Charles Pierre 
Eugene (Louise Alexan¬ 
drine De Manduit), 232. 

Le Brun, Pierre, 246. 

Le Brun, Michael, 246. 

L’Enfant, Peter Charles 
(1754-1825), 85-93. 

Lewis, Lawrence, 23. 

Lewis, Captain Meriwether, 
12 . 

Lewisburg University, 207. 

Lexington and Frankford 
Railroad, 182. 

Library Company of Phila¬ 
delphia, 75. 

Library of Congress, 116. 

Lincoln Building, 242. 

Lincoln, General Benjamin, 

86 . 

Loan Office, General, 56, 59. 

Lock, Englebert, 63. 

Logan Circle, 204. 

Loganian Collection, 75. 

Logan, James, 35; may have 
designed his mansion, 
“Stenton,” 44. 

Lottery, Blodget’s, 70-71. 


276 


Lysicrates, Choragic Monu¬ 
ment of, 22. 

Mackay, Charles, 135. 

Maddox, Mrs. Mary, 67. 

Madelaine, Leonard, 232,233. 

Madelaine, Mrs. (Marie De 
Monmignon), 232, 233. 

Magellanic Gold Medal, 81. 

Mahony, John T., 240. 

Mailer, Rev. Father, 238. 

Masons, Grand Lodge of 
Pennsylvania, 125. 

Masonic Hall, Philadelphia, 
8, 12, 16, 17. 

Masonic Temple, New York 
City, 246. 

Mechanics Bank, 13, 22. 

Mercantile Library, 220. 

Mercantile Library Co., 260. 

Merchants’ Exchange, 13, 21, 
22, 185, 

Metropolitan Life Insurance 
Co. Building, 246. 

Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, 246. 

Mickve Israel Synagogue, 
13, 17. 

Middle City Bank, 222. 

McArthur, John (1823-1890), 
253-26S. Designed largest 
building in America, 253; 
distinguished for struc¬ 
tural character of his 
buildings, 253; born in 
Scotland, 254; apprenticed 
to carpentering trade, 254; 
studies architecture in 
evenings, 254; receives 
first prize for his House 
of Refuge plans, 255; su¬ 
perintendent of construc¬ 


tion on west wing of 
Pennsylvania Hospital, 
255; some of his important 
commissions, 255-259; his 
work outside of Philadel¬ 
phia, 260; designs market 
house wmch became a 
model, 260; resident U. S. 
architect during Civil 
War, 262; makes designs 
for Philadelphia City Hall, 
266; superintends erection 
of Federal Building, Phil¬ 
adelphia, 267; death of, 
268; mentioned, 207. 

McKean, Henry Pratt, 225. 

Mills, Robert (1781-1855), 
111, 123-140; engineer as 
well as architect, 123; en¬ 
gaged by Latrobe to sur¬ 
vey canal across State of 
Delaware, 23; resident of 
Philadelphia, 124; career 
associated with Charles¬ 
ton, Washington and Phil¬ 
adelphia, 124; introduced 
fire-proof construction, 
124; designed Wasnington 
Hall, 125, 135; born in 
Charleston, 1781, 125; ed¬ 
ucated in Charleston Col¬ 
lege, 125; placed under 
James Hoban, 125; Presi¬ 
dent Jefferson interested 
in, 126; succeeds Hoban 
as architect of Capitol, 
126; hazy period in his 
career. 126; may have de¬ 
signed Bank of Philadel¬ 
phia, 128; probable archi¬ 
tect of first Academy of 
the Fine Arts, 128; name 


277 


of in early Philadelphia 
Directories, 128; residence 
at Eighth and Locust Sts., 
129; Secretary of the So¬ 
ciety of Artists, 129; ex¬ 
hibits in first art exhibi¬ 
tion, 129; drawing for 
State Capitol at Harris¬ 
burg, 130; architect of 
Upper Ferry Bridge, 130; 
designed Sansom Street 
Baptist Church, 130; de¬ 
signs fire-proof wings to 
Independnece Hall, 132; 
erects prison at Burling¬ 
ton, N. J., 134; designs 
Washington monument, 
Baltimore, 134; goes to 
Baltimore, 136; returns to 
Charleston, 137; state en¬ 
gineer of South Carolina, 
137; publications of, 137, 
138; designs Bunker Hill 
monument, 138, 139; de¬ 
signs Washington monu¬ 
ment in Washington, D. 
C., 139; appointed U. S. 
architect, 140; his death, 
1855, 140; mentioned, 206. 

Mills, William, 125. 

Mills, Mrs. William (Ann 
Taylor), 125. 

Mine Hill and Schuylkill 
Haven Railroad, 182. 

Mint of the United States, 
13, 21. 

Monmouth, Battle of, 232. 

Monticello, 112, 126. 

Morduinoff, Count, 147, 152, 
154. 

Morris, Robert, 70, 71, 89; 
mansion of, 89-92. 


Mount Vernon, 95. 

Moyamensing Prison, see 
Prison, Phila. County. 

“Mt. Pleasant,” home of 
Captain John MacPherson, 
44. 

Musical Fund Hall, 13, 17, 
241. 

Musical Fund Society, 241. 

Myers, Gustavus A., 220. 

Napoleon I, 234. 

Nashville, Tenn., Capitol at, 
24. 

Nassau Hall, Princeton, 69. 

National Monument Society, 
139. 

Nativity, Episcopal Church 
of, 242. 

Naval Asylum, 13, 20; see 
U. S. Naval Hospital. 

Naval Hospitals: Philadel¬ 
phia, Mare Island, Annap¬ 
olis, 262. 

Neumann, Venerable John 
N., Catholic Bishop of 
Philadelphia, 237. 

New Jerusalem Temple, 17. 

Newkirk, Matthew, mansion 
of, 204. 

New York and Erie Rail¬ 
road, 178. 

New York Foundling Asy¬ 
lum, 246. 

Nicholas, John, see Nichols. 

Nichols, John, an original 
associator of Carpenters’ 
Company, 40; died in 1756, 
40. 

Northern New York Rail¬ 
road, 184. 

Notman, John (1810-1865), 


278 


213-225; death notice of, 
very brief, 213; born in 
Edinburgh, 214; appren¬ 
ticed to carpenter in native 
city, 214; introduced the 
“Brownstone front” in 
Philadelphia, 214; came to 
Philadelphia in 1831; work 
of in Burlington, N. J., 
215; name first appears in 
Philadelphia Directories 
in 1839, as carpenter, 217; 
first appears as “architect’’’ 
in 1841, 217; erects Acad¬ 
emy of Natural Sciences, 
217; designs Laurel Hill 
Cemetery, 217; in 1845 
first uses Brownstone, 218; 
Bank of North America 
probably first building 
erected of Brownstone in 
Philadelphia, 220; builds 
Athenaeum, 220; his work 
at this time, 220-221; de¬ 
signs Holy Trinity Episco¬ 
pal Church, 222; erects St. 
Mark’s Episcopal Church, 
220; country mansions de¬ 
signed by, 221-222; work 
in other places than Phil¬ 
adelphia, 224, 225; designs 
St. Clement’s Episcopal 
Church, 222; designs fa¬ 
cade of Catholic Cathed- 
dral of SS. Peter and Paul, 

224, 240; death of, 225; 
brother of in Montreal, 

225. 

Notman, Mrs. John (Pullen) 
222 . 

Notman, David, 214. 


Notman, Mrs. David (Mary 
Christie), 214. 

Notman, brother of John, 
225. 

Nutis, Ann Margaret (Mrs. 
Benjamin Latrobe), 93. 

Odd Fellows’ Cemetery, 205. 

Office Building, first in Phil¬ 
adelphia, 22. 

Old Swedes’ Church (Gloria 
Dei), 36; builders and de¬ 
signers of, 35. 

Old Swedes’ Church, Wil¬ 
mington, 35. 

Ohio Steamboat Co., 115. 

Peca, or Pecan, Valentine, 7. 

Pegler, Thomas, 62. 

Penitentiary, Eastern, Phila¬ 
delphia, 145, 155, 160, 161, 
196. 

Penitentiary, Western, Pitts¬ 
burgh, 146, 154, 161. 

Penitentiary, Missouri, 146. 

Penitentiary, Rhode Island, 
146, 161. 

Penitentiary, Trenton, N. J., 
146, 160. 

Penn, William, 30, 32, 34, 
35, 51. 

Pennsylvania Academy of 
the Fine Arts, 11. 

Pennsylvania Hospital, 63- 
66, 78. 

Pennsylvania Hospital,Dept, 
for Insane, 161, 162. 

Pennsylvania Lunatic Asy¬ 
lum, Harrisburg, 162. 

Pennsylvania Railroad offi¬ 
ces, 224. 


279 


Pennsylvania Society for 
Promoting Internal Im¬ 
provements, 18, 181. 

Permanent Bridge at Market 
Street, 9. 

Perry, Commodore Oliver H., 
12 . 

Philadelphia, Athens of 
America, 5; influence that 
animated early architec¬ 
ture of, traceable to one or 
two men—Latrobe and 
Strickland, 5. 

Philadelphia Bank, 13, 22. 

Philadelphia and Trenton 
Railroad, 182. 

Philadelphia Library, 58 
(see Library Company of 
Philadelphia), 76, 78. 

Philadelphia, Wilmington 
and Baltimore Railroad, 
23, 182. 

Palladio, Andrea, his Four 
Books of Architecture, 
112, 126. 

Palmer, Daniel, 62. 

Palmer, Edward, 62. 

Palmer, Jonathan, 62. 

Panama Railroad, 1S6. 

Pardee Hall, Easton, Penna., 
260. 

“Parentalia, or Memoirs of 
the Family of Wren,” 147. 

Park Theatre, New York, 8. 

Patent Office, U. S., 85, 206. 

Patents, Thornton first U. S. 
Commissioner of, 85. 

Peace, Joseph, mansion of, 
221 . 

Peale, Charles Willson, mu¬ 
seum of, 159. 

Philosophical Hall, 58. 


Philosophical Society, 63, 81, 
204. 

Pioneer Builders, 29-45. 

Pittsburgh Court House, 146. 

Plesis, Thomas Antoine 
Chevalier De Manduit, 232. 

Porter, Captain David, 12. 

Porter & Coates, 259. 

Porteus (or Portiss) James, 
early builder and archi¬ 
tect, 32; builds “slate roof 
house” for Samuel Carpen¬ 
ter, 32; an original asso- 
ciator of Carpenters’ Com¬ 
pany in 1724, 34, 39; died 
in 1737; may figure in 
Taylor papers in Pennsyl¬ 
vania Historical Society’s 
Collection, 35; possibly 
servant to William Wade, 
35. 

Portiss, James. See Porteus. 

Port Folio, 9, 11, 12, 135. 

Port Richmond, Philadel¬ 
phia, 186. 

Post Office, Philadelphia, 
253, 267. 

Potomac Canal, 113. 

Powell Hill, 40. 

Powell, Samuel, “The Rich 
Carpenter,” an original 
associator of Carpenters’ 
Company, 39; died in 
1756, 39; first operative 
builder in Philadelphia, 
40; his house at Second 
and Pine Streets, 40; asks 
discount of stall rent, 41; 
built bridge across t)ock 
Creek, 41; his property in 
Philadelphia, 40, 41. 


280 


Presbyterian Board of Edu¬ 
cation, building of, 256. 

President’s House, Washing¬ 
ton, 84, 88. 

Preston Retreat, 204. 

Prison, Philadelphia County, 
196, 204; New Jersey 

State, at Trenton, 224. 

Provincial Assembly, first 
sat in State House, 59. 

Provincial Council of Penn¬ 
sylvania, 32. 

Public Ledger Building, 253, 
263. 

“Public Works of the United 
States of America,’’ 24. 

Pullen, see Notrnan, Mrs. 
John. 

> 

Randolph, Edmund, 95. 

Red Bank, Battle of, 232. 

Redman, Thomas, 62. 

Reinagle, Alexander, 8. 

Reinagh, Hugh, 8, 15. 

Rittenhouse Square, 151,162. 

Rhoads, Samuel, built Penn¬ 
sylvania Hospital, 63; de¬ 
signed Pennsylvania Hos¬ 
pital, 63-64; friend of 
Franklin, 64; designer of 
characteristic cupola, 64; 
member of City Council, 
1741, 64; Mayor of Phila¬ 
delphia, 1774, 64; director 
of Philadelphia Library, 
65. 

Robinson, Jonathan, 63. 

Rochambeau, Count de, 232. 

Rodes, Mark, 169. 

Rogers, William H., 221. 

Rolls Office, 56. 


Roosevelt, Nicholas I., 104, 
106. 

Roosevelt, President, 104. 

Rugan, John, 169. 

San Carlo Opera House, 
Naples, 244. 

San Juan River, Colombia, 
186. 

Sansom Street Baptist 
Church, 130. 

Savage, James, 62. 

Scharf & Westcott’s History 
of Philadelphia, 6, 213. 

Schuylkill Navigation Com¬ 
pany, 175, 179, 260. 

Scot’s Presbyterian Church, 
242. 

Seventh Presbyterian 
Church, 240, 242. 

Shoemaker, Jacob, 62. 

Shoemaker, Thomas, 62. 

Shot Tower, Richmond, Va., 
130. 

Shuter, John, 62. 

Simpson’s “Lives of Eminent 
Philadelphians,” 5. 

Smart, John, one of the 
builders of “Old Swedes,” 
36. 

Smeaton, John, 93. 

Smith, Bishop, of Charles¬ 
ton, 125. 

Smith, Robert, books of 
given to Carpenters’ Com¬ 
pany, 34; early member of 
Carpenters’ Company, 43; 
rebuilt steeple of Christ 
Church, 43; said to have 
been draftsman of State 
House, 43, 55; reputation 
of as architect-builder, 56; 


281 


name does not appear in 
bills for State House, 60; 
his career, 66-69. 

Smith, the Rev. Dr. William, 
70. 

Society of Artists of the 
United States, 129. 

Sonnecliff, Isaac, 62. 

“South Carolina, Atlas of,” 
137. 

“South Carolina, Statistics 
of,” 137. 

Spruce Street Baptist 
Church, 205. 

State House, Philadelphia. 7, 
9, 40, 43, 49; steeple of, 13; 
first civic group in Amer¬ 
ica. 49; design and idea of 
Andrew Hamilton, 50; 
Hamilton drafts acts ap¬ 
propriating money for, 
52; commission to erect, 
52, 59; plan of in Histori¬ 
cal Society’s Collection, 
54; Kearsley erroneously 
named as architect of, 55; 
built by Edward Woolley 
and Ebenezer Tomlinson, 
56; group provided build¬ 
ings for State archives, 
General Loan Office and 
Rolls Office, 56; work be¬ 
gun before 1732, 56; Ham¬ 
ilton advances money to 
build, 59; wall around 
yard of, 60; tower of built 
in 1741, 60; bill for “rais¬ 
ing tower,” 62; men who 
were employed to build, 
62; see Independence 
Hall. 


“Stenton,” home of James 
Logan, 44. 

Stoops, James, 62. 

Strickland, George, 6, 12. 

Strickland, John, 6, 7, 8. 

Strickland, William (1787- 
1854), the first native 
American architect and 
engineer, 5-24; Dunlap 
gives eleven lines to, 6; 
son of successful builder, 

6; made designs for House 
Carpenters’Society,6; born 
in Philadelphia, 7; enters 
office of Latrobe, 7; want¬ 
ed to be a great painter, 8; 
paints scenery for Park 
Theatre, New York, 8; de¬ 
signs Masonic Hall, Phila¬ 
delphia, 8; engraves in 
aquatint, 11, 12; buildings 
erected by, in Philadel¬ 
phia, 12, 13; “landscape 
painter,” 15; sets up for 
architect, 15; recording 
secretary of Franklin In¬ 
stitute, 18; sent to Eng¬ 
land to study and report 
by Society for Promotion 
of Internal Improvements, 
18; publishes report, illus¬ 
trated with plates, 18; re¬ 
stores Independence Hall, 
20; designs Merchants’ 
Exchange, 21; latter part 
of career devoted to rail¬ 
way engineering, 22, 23; 
designs sarcophagus for 
Washington, 23; publishes 
“Tomb of Washington,” 
24; publishes “Triangula¬ 
tion of the Entrance to 


282 


Delaware Bay,” 24; last 
work on Capitol at Nash¬ 
ville, Tenn., 24; death of, 
24; buried in crypt of Ten¬ 
nessee Capitol, 24; men¬ 
tioned, 111, 123, 132, 145, 
150, 161, 180, 181, 185, 194, 
195. 

Struthers, John, 23. 

Stuart, Gilbert, 70. 

St. Andrew by the Wardrobe, 
London, Church of, orig¬ 
inal of part of design of 
Christ Church, 43. 

St. Andrew’s Episcopal 

Church. Philadelphia, 145, 
152, 156, 162. 

St. Andrew’s Society, 69. 

St. Augustine, Catholic 

Church of, 241. 

St. Bartholomew’s Church, 
New York City, 221. 

St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, 
London, 77. 

St. Clement’s Episcopal 

Church, 222. 

St. George’s Greek Orthodox 
Church, Philadelphia, 152. 

St. George’s Hall, Philadel¬ 
phia, 204. 

St. John’s Church, Balti¬ 
more, 136. 

St. John’s Church, Wilming¬ 
ton, Del., 225. 

St. John the Evangelist, 
Catholic Church of, 237. 

St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, 

220 , 222 . 

St. Mary’s Catholic Church, 
237. 


St. Memin, Charles Balt¬ 
hazar Julien Feveret De, 
12 . 

St. Paul’s Catholic Church, 
268. 

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, 
13, 14, 21, 40. 

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, 
Trenton, 221. 

St. Peter’s Catholic Church, 
236, 240. 

•St. Stephen’s E’piscopal 
Church, 12, 17. 

‘‘Substitute for Railroads 
and Canals, A,” 137. 

Sully, Thomas, 181. 

Surveyor to the Crown, 
London, 94. 

Surveyor of the Public Offi¬ 
ces, London, 94. 

Svlvania Hotel, 224. 

Syng, Philip, 62. 

Tabernacle Presbyterian 
Church, 242. 

Taylor, Isaac, Surveyor of 
Chester County, 35. 

Taylor Papers, 35. 

‘‘Telemachus,” Fenelon’s, 
234. 

Temple of the Muses, Ath¬ 
ens, 100. 

Tennessee, Capitol of, 24. 

Thackera, James, 151. 

Thornton, William, M. D., 
(1761-1828), 65, 75-85, 114. 

Thomas, Gabriel, quoted, 29. 

Thomasson, Hon. Thomas, 
77. 

‘‘Tomb of Washington, The,” 
24. 


283 


Tomlinson, Ebenezer, one of 
the builders of the State 
House, 56, 62. 

Torratore, Rev. Father, 238. 

Tortola, Island of, 76, 77. 

Trautwine, John C. (1810- 
1883), 169, 180, 181, 184- 
187. 

Trautwine, John C., Jr., 184. 

Trautwine, John C., 3d, 184. 

Treasury Building, U. S., at 
Washington, 140. 

Trent, Andrew, see Hamil¬ 
ton, Andrew. 

“Triangulation of the En¬ 
trance to Delaware Bay,” 
24. 

Turner, Robert, erects brick 
House in 1684, 30; may be 
said to have been first 
architect in Philadelphia, 
31. 

University of Leipsic, 93. 

University of Pennsylvania, 
21, 70. 

University of Virginia, 84. 

United States Naval Hospi¬ 
tal, Philadelphia, 146. 

United States Naval Hospi¬ 
tal, Norfolk, Va., 146. 

Usher, Jacob, an original as- 
sociator of Carpenters’ 
Company, 40; passed later 
life in Virginia, 40. 

Valley Forge, 232. 

Von Sonntag, General, 162. 

1 

Wade, William, 35. 


Walnut Grove, house of Jo¬ 
seph Wharton, 44; scene 
of Meschianza, 45. 

Walnut Street Jail, 68. 

Walnut Street Theatre, Phil¬ 
adelphia, 146, 159. 

Walter, Thomas U. (1804- 
1887), 140, 193-207; early 
drawings preserved in 
Washington, 193; preemi¬ 
nently a draftsman, 193; 
Girard College best exam¬ 
ple of Grecian Corinthian 
architecture, 193; work in¬ 
spired by architecture of 
ancient Greece, 194; start¬ 
ed life as bricklayer, 194; 
his connection with Strick¬ 
land, 194; father had con¬ 
tract for Second Bank of 
the United States, 194; fin¬ 
ished trade as bricklayer 
and became a master, 195; 
studied architecture in 
School of Franklin Insti¬ 
tute, 195; enters Strick¬ 
land’s office, 195; designs 
Moyamensing Prison, 196; 
designs Debtors’ Prison, 
196; original styles of 
architecture, 196; design 
for Girard College select¬ 
ed, 198; drawings finished 
in ten days, 199; tours 
Europe for study, 202; 
work in demand, 202; 
other early work, 204-206; 
builds breakwater at La- 
guayra, 204; in charge of 
alterations on National 
Capitol, 206; designs dome 
for Capitol, 206; appoint- 


284 


ed Government architect, 
206; lectures in Columbia 
College, 207; Harvard be¬ 
stows degree of LL. D. on, 
207; draftsman of City 
Hall, Philadelphia, 207; 
death of, 207; master of 
Napoleon Le Brun, 236. 

Washington Benevolent So¬ 
ciety, 135. 

Washington, Bushrol, 95. 

Washington, City of, 70, 86, 
116. 

Washington, George, Tomb 
of, 23, 24. 

Washington, Mrs., Sarchoph- 
agus of, 24. 

Washington Hall, 12, 125, 
135, 136. 

Washington, President, 70, 
81, 85, 88, 95. 

Washington Monument, Bal¬ 
timore, 134, 135, 136. 

Washington Monument, 
Washington, D. C., 138-140. 

Washington Navy Yard, 113. 

Waterworks, New Orleans, 
114, 117. 

Waterworks, Philadelphia, 
102-109, 171-174. 

Wa f son’s, John F.. “Annals 
of Philadelphia,” 39. 

Weale. John, 24. 

Weightman, William, build¬ 
ings for, 268. 

Wernwag, Louis, 130. 

Westcott, Thompson, 69. 

West Spruce Street Presby¬ 
terian Church, 256. 

Wharton, Joseph, owner of 
Walnut Grove, 44. 


White, Canvass, 176. 

White House, 117. See 

President’s House. 

Wignell, Thomas, 8. 

Willard Architectural Com¬ 
mission, 246. 

Willard, Solomon, 139. 

Wills’ Eye Hospital, 204. 

Wilson. Charles C., 140. 

Wood, Rt. Rev. James F., 
Catholic Archbishop of 
Philadelphia. 

Wood Building, 22, 113. 

Woolley, Edmund, purchased 
freedom, 38; founder of 
Carpenters’ Company, 38; 
died 1771, 38; original 

builder of State House 
(Independence Hall), 40, 
56, 62; builds tower of 
State House, 60. 

“Wootton,” 268. 

Wren, Sir Christopher, 39, 
41, 147. 

Wright, Judge, 176. 

Wylie’s, Rev. Dr. (First 
Presbyterian Reformed) 
Church, 256. 

York Herald, 162. 

Yorktown, Siege of, 232. 

4 

Zane, Isaac, an original as- 
sociator of Carpenters' 
Company, 40; was living 
as late as 1749, 40. 

Zenger, John Peter, the New 
York printer, 50. 

Zion Lutheran Church, 69. 


285 






1 













{ 

• ■ 



















* A - , 

c*', \ pr ~0 * n o?J .< 

'- V# iMk'- %* : 0*" '* * 

> *?„ * W A 


> 


A* % 


» v % vwv ^ 

X O P> * r^SNv . ^ • S, 

. * ^'' XV - V ^ ' 

: r°* r*- 3 

* o5 X* * 

A" *Vc- * 



** y ^ 





W* : 

/> 




'**'\^' . * </' t « * * * ^ 

O _(^Tm\ ' 


* ■*> 

X s N A - / 

*<0 7 * * s s \\ _ V > 8 K T \ 

* . <0 ^ -y>, -# ~0 

- ^ '<=»' 

^ 0o - vwlx : •’■*«. 

* .^Wy*>. ^ / * -^ * " ' 

a\> </^ l f///'^7A\W w d 

^ °> vJIaf * X ^ ^ ^ 

-fc - <-> 1 (< .; i o V / % 

» -• ' . /■ .v- • ^ <V . s A 


* V> <$, 

* . V • 









'.1 



'oo 1 ' 



lV 


o,'y 0 \ x * <6 V C ,v , ii 

* •V ,0^ c ‘ « , % .# V* 1 JL*, 

1 ° ° * % v V ; * 

° A* »* •», "> ’ 1 ' ^ s'"'* •V " ' 

».y •- *. .£ * yfilfcA V. a 

»<»• ^s v »M: <W* 

° A^ V » • i V > 

•'„-' / (r^'''A* f " - 'V “• ^ .^ v 

,, %- y -*^ ^6 lt » t ,V'”''/ .v.,% °* x o^*.-** 

m, Q» t “ ^ "sc, ^ /v^2. r, * 

•< '-^ 0 4* A * M?rwvy^ * ^ 

; ^ / ; 

\° ^ * 






* >f' '> 

a ~ 0 V V » ' * “' •> a0 V V 

o v r *. A * 

\v ^ 'HX ^ //n o V* ° 

* Z ' 7 


* <*> 

- ^ A’- 

; ^ ^ ; 

\ 0c u * 

^ ^ 

. y> 

A rv ^ 

* a * N ^0 J "O. ft „ N o *> 

’ I |l s o «> T ^t' 0 N " 

,<y s' _ ‘ // c 



1 °o 

>° ^ ^ '* 

* A' I- c<yu \ pi 

9 N 0 ^ -AT s 

'« ^ A , T A* * 

'Sp - 

, ■°~.s 'a ^o,■* a „„ 

-<^ " V*/^'’ b ° 0 °^^ C ‘ 

'- ^ V % :M^ r -< ■*io' ; 




^ Xj. ' x ° ° x 

*— ’*>! .. o >; * ■ ■ - * s >v - x * r: ° v\ 





•r^ 



v> \ 

C> 

«■? ^ » 

^ - -i > 

O y n M ^ ,A ^ " <s v 

•*b 0 ^ 1 0 ~ c- , --V * • ' / .' 

-/ ^ c,° * < + A* 

' ^ ^ 



















11 ' ./ * !> * 0 V 

v. 

: ; 


% A 





^ ^* (A /£-\ ’*J^A\ '' ^ , cc 

^ J \^/- : '-''^ A % * * v ”^"-w* * 

. %. ' ‘ * ‘ V/. t . ,V '* 1 ‘ 'X. V . . . V. ' * * ‘ ' > V , 0 - . , 

■ ~ «A ^ ^ 0 » -C>rs- 

•fV *. * ■*■<> K 

^ r * ■< v-> rv' 

.no * '•*® n.->^ » 




f 3 N 


, *v 

^ ip*' ^ . 

> jy^ s *Z ** & 
& * ^ 
<a « 



xf> \v 


A *. ^ 
*>- ^11 


.%■»'-%, - w&% ° ^ ■v “ ray; 

t> *?■ V v A. ^ 1 A >5 . •Y, 

✓ jr>^ \ * vi -A C v 

° S ‘ , /% ** %. “ ' A(A e 0 " 6 *A 

U|' ; A- A' ftfggA " :®' ^ A * 

-<• J' ® .A Ap 

•> _ y ^MaCvvS* > V V- y£. * ~Z-/V/iV£f V 

~ v ' -s ri) C* > 'Ky* J ^ « o “ r#» *, ^CiA/ ' r\ o* ✓ 

»..'* A *.., »ono’ « v V ».,<“' A 0 ..,,’9^ ' 

-tP v'w. '",^’ V *’'*«/ > 

\ ^ ^ ^Vaa’a*^ ^ ^ 

A % ' A V -. A' A •Josy » , 

^ ^.A .V ^^WP^vV ‘ C** * 4- A 

•‘■•«A%-‘ A V'**'VV'*« °V*‘V 

O G * ^fsr, <* *P JO v -* .j> (*y * 

s A..' vv + A' * jeAAA < v k « 

‘ i ^ v ;4ft--.r>-- W- 
>» 0 . 



^ c; 

V 



A *‘■•'*%**- 



A n o o A^'m-A'A oK 

^ V ^ a^A/, V 

0(- «r 


*7'. 

oA 

cP (CV 


* o t ' > 

r * ^ 
i z v v 

<A - > |, | ^ A A o A ' < . v 

o^/V y##s '^ 

- ^ \\ ^ J^/A -f ' ^ ^ < 

o' ° %A*-A '. 

^ -n^ '■ , *zMy' 

•/■ «^‘'. v ^ ^ ^ c^ ~^y^/; IU; Jr x 

V * ’»° \A, v. „, *v ■* * 11 ■*' <f\ - • • 

AAsf/A A ♦'• 

r IaA* A 

J o ^ o ^ 


,y A o * A o * ; 

y *+A > a V-. 

.n » , % '•• *° ,»./<«'■•''/ .m, 

v/rH*,' 1 . ^ 0° .'■^k ' * 4? S^.jr??,-’ ’3 

t£ A < ' AJiix '^, . v - * 

I® 5 ; -bo' ^ v 

^_KC^\r ( ^ S#<. .HO * 



i n° °x. 

>;* Af: '>o°.;v ; a 

-CA ^ oA - , 

" Ap ,(V « ^ 



A - ^6^ « A V ^ o WA " s S ^ 

3 ^ ^ A A#%A A ^ 

*"=« A v « i, *« A y ° ,1 '‘ tA^ 0 ” c A< 

+ ° . *■' *.* 

o a' 


o A 



































































